Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9

Return ordered,

Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1972–73.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 30)

Return ordered,

Return respecting application of Standing Order No 30 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1972–73 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1972–73:

Of all Private Bills. Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1972–73 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and. in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1972–73 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:

And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1972–73, showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;

(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation or Dissolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1972–73 with the total number of signatures in that Session.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,

Return of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1972–73 with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairman's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered,

Return of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1972–73, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,

Return for Session 1972–73, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by a Committee distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate. Matter and Statutory Instrument, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of


Members present at each of those sittings.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered.

Return of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1972–73; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of Both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders;

Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1972–73, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Scotland

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Unemployment in Scotland is still too high. But the level continues to fall quite rapidly. The seasonally adjusted unemployment total is 40 per cent. less than in March last year.

Mr. Taylor: This is a very encouraging trend, which we hope will continue, but can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the position regarding unfilled vacancies, which is usually a better guide to whether the economy is growing or contracting?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that there are about four times as many vacancies for adult

males remaining unfilled in October of this year compared with last year.

Mr. Ewing: Will not the Minister agree that there are certain areas of Scotland where the unemployment situation is extremely difficult? It appears that the Government's measures have not been successful in curing this problem. Will the Minister examine how many unfilled vacancies there are in those difficult areas, and examine particularly what part the North Sea oil industry could play in resolving their problems?

Mr. Macmillan: I entirely agree that unemployment is unevenly scattered in Scotland. In North Sea oil—excluding the 1,800 or so jobs on Clydeside which were created by Marathon and which are not included because that deals with things other than North Sea oil—about 5,600 jobs in oil exploration development already exist in Scotland. Projects announced so far are expected to produce a further 9,000 jobs over the next four or five years. In addition there will be substantial employment in the supplying firms, which will be more widely scattered than the others, and in the infrastructure investment in connection with all the developing activities.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Do not those facts confirm that there are regional variations in Scotland, as there are in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that these variations should be taken into account in the pay and prices policy?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that the pay and prices policy is a suitable vehicle to take account of regional variations of employment. The variations differ greatly in different parts of the country. They are sometimes extremely small, affecting small areas. It is a question of trying to create jobs in the right skills where people are available to fill them.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the unemployment figures in Scotland are still higher than they were in June 1970, and will he note also that in Scotland we have many empty factories? In my own constituency there are six factories lying idle and doing nothing. Will he note particularly that many people from the construction industry, and especially from the steel industry, are still signing on


with the Department of Employment? Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us his intentions for these people?

Mr. Macmillan: As regards steel, the plans of the British Steel Corporation are for the expansion of production in Scotland, although I accept that the old open-hearth steelmaking plants had to be closed in order to obtain a modern steel industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has established a special reconstruction team to make recommendations for improving the whole economic situation in the areas that will be affected by closures, and my own Department makes every effort, through its employment and training services—which are being greatly improved—to try to find suitable jobs for people who are signing on.

School Leavers

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of school leavers currently out of work in the United Kingdom and in the South-East of England.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Scottish school leavers who left school at the last leaving date have been unable to find unemployment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): On 8th October there were 5,900 school leavers registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, including 624 in the London and South-East Region and 738 in Scotland. These statistics do not identify school leavers by term or year of leaving, but most would have left in the summer of this year.

Mr. Grylls: Does not that rather low figure happily prove that the economy is expanding fast? Could my hon. Friend tell me what improvements are being made in the careers advice and training services to help all school leavers in all parts of the country to find suitable employment?

Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that it reveals a useful trend. Improvements are being constantly made in the careers advice service for young people. Where young people as a whole are concerned I am glad that, besides

school leavers, the number registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 22,308, compared with 68,213 in October last year, and unfilled vacancies for young people totalled 124,129 for this month compared with 47,786 a year ago.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Minister agree that young people leaving school seem to be pushed into dead-end jobs? I can quote instances of youngsters of 16 or 17 years of age doing manual labouring jobs without any prospect of promotion and no career structure. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this difficult problem.

Mr. Smith: I sympathise with the hon. Member. This problem has not been overlooked, as he knows, particularly in the development areas, which often present this problem. Constant efforts are being made to try to prevent as many youngsters as possible from going into dead-end jobs. There has been a considerable improvement in Scotland in this connection. It is still not good enough relative to other parts of the country, but I take the hon. Member's point and we shall continue our efforts.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Can my hon. Friend say how far the improvement is due to the raising of the school leaving age?

Mr. Smith: It is difficult to estimate the direct effect of the school leaving age on the employment situation, but I am sure the House will agree that the main reason for reduced unemployment throughout this year has been the improvement in the economy and the consequential substantial increase in job opportunities, both for young people and for adults.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the very real difficulties encountered by school leavers seeking apprenticeships in building industry trade as a result of the spread of lump labour and labour-only contracting? Will he undertake to initiate talks with employers and trade unions in the building industry about this problem?

Mr. Smith: I should be willing to look at that matter. The hon. Member probably knows that the Construction Industry Training Board is still trying to get apprenticeships and training for young people. But I am prepared to consider what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Loughlin: Is it not the fact that the hon. Gentleman has before him the corresponding figures for school leavers last year and this year, and therefore he can give the difference between the number of school leavers in the two periods and demonstrate the effect on the employment situation?

Mr. Smith: I do not have those figures immediately to hand, but, as I said, the position is improving and has been improving throughout the whole of this time. The trend in the hon. Member's area, as in other parts of the country, will continue in that direction.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to assist school leavers to find employment in the development areas.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Because of the raising of the school leaving age there have been fewer school leavers this year, and with the great improvement in job opportunities most of them have obtained employment without difficulty. This improvement has also been felt in the development areas. Careers officers of the youth employment service will continue to do all they can to help those still seeking work.

Mr. Eadie: Will not the Minister accept that the wrong job for a school leaver may well scar his employment prospects for the rest of his life? Will the hon. Gentleman consider using some of the advance factories which we are told are empty in order to train some young people in work skills?

Mr. Smith: We are always open to useful suggestions, and I shall look at that. I agree that putting young persons into the wrong job may damage their future. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that there are some dead-end jobs. At least, more young people are now going into employment even in the development areas, and in Scotland the position has improved dramatically recently. Part of our job will be to try to get people into jobs with prospects, and one of the motivations behind the Manpower Services Commission, for whose establishment we provided earlier in this Session of Parliament, is aimed to that end.

Unemployed Persons and Vacancies

Mr. Adam Butler: , asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of registered unemployed and of notified vacancies in England at the latest available date.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Based on the provisional figures for October, there were 396,185 people registered unemployed and 443,941 notified vacancies.

Mr. Butler: I welcome the continuing drop in the unemployment figure, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the labour shortage in England, particularly in the South, may well prove a threat to the Government's growth policy? Therefore, does he think that the productivity pay arrangements in phase 3 are adequate? In particular, can he arrange that any settlements made under the three-month delay clause will be back-dated to the original agreement?

Mr. Macmillan: On the latter point, that is the case. Under any new efficiency payment scheme which may be introduced from 1st January, if approved by the Pay Board, the payment will be backdated to 1st January if after three months' operation it has achieved its objective.
On the question of the constraint to growth, the Director-General of the National Economic Development Office, after consultation with industry, told the National Economic Development Council on 8th October that, while the pace of expansion after a period of recession was causing recruitment difficulties in some skills and areas, there was every reason to believe that our labour resources, if fully and effectively utilised, were adequate to sustain a strong rate of expansion. I see no reason to dissent from that view.

Mr. Dell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the grave deterioration in the unemployment position on Merseyside compared with the national position and that in other development areas? What action does he propose to take about that, and when will the Government decide to create a special development area in Merseyside?

Mr. Macmillan: The question of special development areas, and so on, is a


matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The situation on Merseyside distorts, among other things, the figures for the North-West generally, and my Department is doing all that it can to see what can be done about employment and training on Merseyside. I accept that there is a difficulty there.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is difficult to get the balance right between taking jobs to areas where there is high unemployment and bringing workers to places where there is work, the situation in the South-East and in London is becoming serious? One ought now to be thinking in terms of getting workers to come here to work rather than merely creating jobs in other places. Will my right hon. Friend therefore ask the Government, under phase 3, to look at the London allowance, which is too low?

Mr. Macmillan: We have referred the question of the London allowance and its methodology to the Pay Board. To assist the mobility of labour further we have made improvements to the transfer scheme administered in my Department, and I gave details of these to the House on 18th October last.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that during the next few weeks there are likely to be more dle machines and empty jobs because of the decision of Sir John Donaldson yesterday? Will the Minister tell us whether he intends to take any action to prevent industrial unrest because of that decision?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that it is for me to comment on a decision of the court, other than to say that the National Industrial Relations Court made it clear that the issue involved—which was a recognition issue—had been referred to the proper channels, namely, the Commission on Industrial Relations, and that both the employer and the employees had been under compulsion to refrain from taking industrial action meanwhile.

Construction Industry (Training)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are under training in the construction industry in the Bolton travel-to-work area and the North-West area as a whole;

and what were the comparative figures at the same date in 1970.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): The most up-to-date figures are for Government training facilities. The number of places in construction within six miles of Bolton has risen from 112 to 173 places since 1970, and in the North-West as a whole from 560 to 697 places. Occupancy rates are very high.
The latest information supplied by the Construction Industry Training Board relates to mid-1972, when 314 approved trainees were employed in the Bolton travel-to-work area and 10,785 in the North-West. These figures compare with 292 and 11,742, respectively, in October 1970.

Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend understand that I tabled this Question originally because of the serious shortage of building workers in the Bolton area? If he looks at today's Order Paper he will see expressions of the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the serious situation in the construction industry. In view of the poor figures which my hon. Friend gave us, may I ask whether the Government are doing enough to train more building workers?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I should be surprised if my hon. Friend really wanted convincing of that. In a period of expansion such as we are experiencing it is not surprising that there is some difficulty of recruitment, following as it does a period of depression which started in the building industry in 1969–70 when employers laid off their workers and did no more training.
If concern is expressed on the Order Paper, the answer is clear. The Government are providing and training one-quarter of the skilled craftsmen and about half the bricklayers entering the building industry. My hon. Friend will therefore realise that, whilst one is never satisfied, that is a prodigious effort.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Minister aware that the industrial training boards of local education authorities have recommended increases in the standard of charges for construction training in colleges, of a kind that is causing concern to local authorities and employers? Is not this another aspect of the Government's failure to recognise that they are


not doing sufficient in this sphere, particularly when local authorities are not building houses at all?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises a point which is largely not for me, and I take that into account. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is hard put to it to accuse the Government of failure in training people for the construction industry, not least as a result of the record of his own Government, which led to the present shortage of craftsmen in the industry.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are being trained and retrained for the construction industry at the present moment.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many apprenticeships were entered into in the building industry during the last 12 months.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The most up-to-date figures are those for Government training. Under the Training Opportunities Scheme, 3,763 adults were receiving training in construction trades in September 1973 and an estimated total of 6,500 adults will complete courses in construction trades this year.
In the 12 months ending August 1973, 12,890 apprentices first registered under the National Joint Training Scheme of the National Joint Council for the Building Industry, and the latest figures of the Construction Industry Training Board, which relate to 1971–72, show that 114,191 people attended courses of all kinds approved by the hoard in that year.

Mr. Knox: I welcome that answer, but will my hon. Friend review the situation and produce further specific plans for a substantial increase in training facilities?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We are always looking for new ways of bringing about more training in the construction industry. To this end emergency schemes were started in April, and very good progress is being made.

Mr. Cox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the appalling housing

position in the country, those are very depressing figures? Is he further aware that in many parts of the country youngsters can enter an apprenticeship only via a local authority building department because of the lump labour system, under which firms will not take youngsters into apprenticeship? Will he therefore tell the House what action he intends to take, because these firms are quite happy to make millions of pounds profit yet refuse to train the craftsmen of the future?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I should have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the figures I gave for first-year apprenticeships were those registered with the Building National Joint Council. There are other figures which are entirely different. The figures are not yet available for the electrical contracting or plumbing national joint councils. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his last question?

Mr. Cox: Will the lion. Gentleman make private companies which are quite happy to make millions of pounds profit from house building face their responsibilities and train the craftsmen of the future?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have been very encouraged in recent months by the way in which employers and the CITB, which now commands much greater respect and confidence in industry, have been tackling the problem. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record and at the bulletins put out by the employers, he will see that a new and prodigious effort is being made.

Mr. Idris Owen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures are no cause for complacency and that the position in the construction industry is desperately serious? Contractors are refusing to tender for public work for fear of getting the job, with the result that they cannot even start it. Inevitably the situation is reflected in tender prices which the nation is having to pay.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which I share. I have illustrated the Government's prodigious part in this. But I am sure my hon. Friend is setting an example to employers by taking on a number of apprentices in his own firm, and I hope that his example will be widely followed.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not true that the difficulty has arisen because of the extension of labour-only sub-contracting? Therefore, should not the Government encourage local authority building so that local authorities can do the work and, at the same time, ensure that there is an extension of training for apprentices?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has studied these matters, just as I have in the past, though for different reasons, that is mainly a matter for the Department of the Environment. What is said about the lump, namely, that it discourages apprenticeship, is not necessarily borne out by the facts. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for 1972 for the recruitment of apprentices, he will find that they are moving steadily upwards for the first time. Formerly there was a recession in apprenticeship which mainly flowed from the imposition of selective employment tax when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

Mr. Prentice: Does not the Minister frankly acknowledge that the growth of the lump in recent years has been a major factor which has aggravated the training crisis in the construction industry? Bearing in mind that his party inherited, when it came to office, a Bill which the Labour Government had drafted to deal with this problem, and that over three years have gone by in which the situation has become worse and there has been no Government action, may we expect a Government statement shortly and some proposals in the Queen's Speech next week?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been involved in discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on these matters, and he is setting up a committee which is looking not only into this problem from both sides of industry but into specific problems regarding decasualisation raised by the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Prentice: This industry is the most inquired into in the country. Three or four years ago there was an inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor Phelps Brown. Have there not been enough inquiries, and is it not time that the Government brought forward urgent action on the matter?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend in another Department, but I agree that it has been a well inquired into industry in many respects. This committee is being set up from both sides of industry, and it will have a chance to investigate the matter. As regards the Phelps Brown inquiry, I know that the right hon. Gentleman had a Bill of his own on the matter in which I was much interested. I produced a rather better Bill and put it before the House myself. It would not necessarily be relevant today, but this is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Disabled Persons (Scotland)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage unemployment rate among the registered disabled in Scotland; how this compares with the overall Scottish rate; what were the comparable figures in 1970; and if he will provide similar statistics for England and Wales.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 10th September 1973 in Scotland 13.6 per cent. of registered disabled people were unemployed whilst the overall unemployment rate was 4.1 per cent. The comparable figures for 1970 were 13.8 per cent. and 4.3 per cent. respectively. On 10th September 1973 in England and Wales 10·8 per cent. of registered disabled people were unemployed and the overall unemployment rate was 2.0 per cent. The comparable figures for 1970 were 11.1 per cent. and 2.3 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been very little improvement in the last three years? Is it not for him and his Department to take more forceful action against those firms which are, and have been, deliberately flouting the law for 25 years? At a time when the Government are castigating the trade unions for disobeying the law, is it not time that a levy was imposed on these firms if they have no certificate of exemption?

Mr. Smith: Throughout the United Kingdom the rate of unemployment among the registered disabled is now lower than at the same period three years ago. Moreover, in Scotland there has been an improvement in the rate of employment among disabled people relative to


that of the able-bodied during those three years. I agree with the hon. Member that the position is unsatisfactory, and that is one of the reasons why we have had a study made on the subject and published a quota document. I do not think that a witch-hunt at this stage, before radical changes in the approach are made, would necessarily be right. The position is improving the whole time because we have instituted firmer inspections, and the total number of firms which are evading their responsibilities is coming down fairly dramatically.

Mr. Marten: The whole House will be disappointed in the decline shown by the figures on a national basis. Is not the remedy to educate employers that the disabled wish to live as normal a life as possible? That is the message to get home.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is an expert on the subject and he knows that, as far as possible, one must treat disabled people as normal, and that is what we in the Department of Employment seek to do. The process of education goes on the whole time, and it will be intensified as a result of the review which has just taken place.

Mr. Harold Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was as long ago as 23rd May that I pointed out to him in debate that 9,000 firms were in flagrant and deliberate breach of the law in respect of the quota? Every month since then I have asked the hon. Gentleman what he intends to do about it. It is not good enough, when Opposition Members ask the Government to enforce the law, to describe it as a witch-hunt. Will the Minister have another and more serious and responsible look at the matter?

Mr. Smith: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to agree that, with the quota document now before us which proposes various alternatives of a radical nature, it would be wrong to embark on a whole series of new prosecutions at this juncture. Successive Governments have relied on persuasion rather than on coercion. As a result of these new proposals, more Draconian measures may well be proposed against employers.
However, the number of employers who are below quota and do not have permits

from my Department has decreased from 14,648 in May 1971 to 8,225 in May 1973, which is the latest figure. I hope that the figure is still going down and that, with the new approach which has been instituted by the present administration, the situation will be much better regularised.

Handicapped Persons

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will undertake a review of the employment difficulties facing the physically and mentally handicapped; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: My Department is currently undertaking such a review and is publishing a series of documents as a basis for consultation with my National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, and the many others concerned with these problems, on how the present arrangements for helping disabled people to get and keep suitable jobs can be improved.

Mr. Judd: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that in that review the Government are not only examining the importance of compelling employers to fulfil their quotas, but are looking at all the environmental considerations and problems confronting the physically and mentally handicapped and the blind in modern industry? Is he examining ways of strengthening, in terms of both staff and resources, the specialist sections of his Department and examining the feasibility of extending the number of sheltered workshops for the handicapped where these would be appropriate?

Mr. Macmillan: The first document was published in July last year on the resettlement service, and a series of trials have been put in hand to test, among other things, ways of improving vocational assessment facilities for disabled people. There are plans to improve the disablement resettlement officer service which we are discussing with the national advisory council. A second consultative document on the quota scheme was published in May this year. We are to publish a third document on sheltered employment in December, and a fourth and last document on industrial rehabilitation and vocational training early next year. This should enable a full range of consultations and review on the lines the hon.


Member suggested to be completed by early summer.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Secretary of State aware that in reply to an earlier Question on this very problem the Minister gave the impression that, because the law is being reconsidered, now is the wrong time to be talking of enforcing it? If that is a valid argument and the Industrial Relations Act is being reconsidered, will the Government now take a similar view in relation to the Con-Mech dispute?

Mr. Macmillan: I listened to my hon. Friend's answer, and I do not think he suggested that it was the wrong time to enforce the law. We are enforcing the law. What I have to accept is that if all the people who should have a given quota of disabled were to have that total, the number would exceed the total number of disabled. It is, therefore, possible for people quite genuinely not to have suitable work for disabled people. There is a second problem, that quite a number of disabled people are employed and are not of their own choice registered as such. The Government do not wish to put pressure on employers who are employing unregistered disabled people to force those people to register in order to fulfil their quota when the disabled people may not wish to do so.

Noise Legislation

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has now received the report of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee on the problems involved in framing practical and effective noise legislation; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Joan Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a progress report on the control of noise in factories, following the statement he made before the recess.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Noise Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee has started work on possible forms of noise legislation and hopes to complete its detailed study in the first half of next year. In the meantime, industry continues to show an encouraging response to the code of practice we published.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Government intend to bring forward legislation to deal with noise under the terms of the Robens Report or whether it will be brought forward separately?

Mr. Smith: The sub-committee is carrying out its work according to our proposals for legislation on safety and health, and the expectation is that early legislation will be forthcoming. Our proposals envisage the establishment of a safety and health commission, and it is likely that the sub-committee's report will be one of the first and most important items on the agenda of the new commission—that is, of course, if it is approved by Parliament.

Miss Hall: Meanwhile, before new legislation is introduced, there is a problem of noise in factories. Can my hon. Friend tell us what his inspectors are doing about it?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. It is a real problem, and that is why the Government have instituted a further specialised inquiry. The Factory Inspectorate has reported an increased awareness on the part of both management and workers of the need to take action to reduce noise exposure, so the message is beginning to get home, and, as with disablement, it is education which counts to a large degree.

Dr. Miller: In the meantime, will the Minister appreciate that this is a serious medical problem and that he ought to be ensuring that the present laws against noise are enforced, particularly on our roads, where heavy lorries create a tremendous problem in this respect?

Mr. Smith: At present, lorries and roads are not the responsibility of my Department. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the experienced medical men and scientists taking part in the inquiry are making a valuable contribution.

Building and Construction (Skilled Craftsmen)

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what studies he proposes to commission to investigate the adequate utilisation of skilled craftsmen in the building and construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Manpower utilisation in the construction industry is already under study by the Building Research Centre and by the relevant economic development committees. I do not propose additional studies by my Department.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that because of lump labour the London borough of Islington—and this applies to many other London boroughs—is unable to get contractors to undertake work? When will the Government introduce legislation to abolish lump labour?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have already dealt with this issue. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment, and my right hon. and learned Friend is setting up a committee to inquire into this whole practice.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: As the problem is one of a shortage of skilled labour, can my hon. Friend say whether any progress has been made in the talks to streamline the period of apprenticeship in the construction industry?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Yes, Sir. As I understand it, discussions are still taking place between both sides of industry to bring the period of certain apprenticeships down from four years to three. I understand that progress is being made, and this will be very welcome indeed.

Manchester

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of wholly-unemployed men in the Manchester travel-to-work area in June 1970; and what is the number at the latest available date.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In June 1970 there were 13,593 males unemployed in the area. The provisional figure for October this year is 15,640. The figures are not adjusted to take account of seasonal factors.

Mr. Kaufman: Does not the Minister regard it as an appalling indictment of the present administration that Manchester, which was a prosperous city with below-average unemployment when the Government came to power, now has unemployment well above the national average? In those circumstances, how

can he possibly justify the Government's supine acceptance of the European Commission's exclusion of Manchester from European regional aid?

Mr. Smith: The latter point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not a matter for me. He ought to sink some of his prejudices and give credit where credit is due. The unemployment rate in the Manchester travel-to-work area has fallen from 28,700 in October of last year to 17,400 in October of this year. Although the figures for June 1970 were only marginally lower than they are today, the important difference is that there are now more male jobs per registrant than there were in June 1970.

Sir R. Cary: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that using figures of unfilled vacancies between June 1970 and October 1973 provides the true key to the unemployment situation in the area?

Mr. Smith: I do not think that I have readily to hand the figures for 1970. Notified vacancies in the area for October of this year totalled 10,978, which is two-and-a-half times the figure for last year, and that figure was also up on June 1970. I shall let my hon. Friend have the actual figure.

Sick Pay Schemes (Manual Workers)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will undertake a review of sick pay schemes for manual workers.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No, Sir. I do not think that any good purposes would be served by undertaking such a review.

Mr. Jenkins: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that almost all professional workers receive payment from their employers when they are ill, but that the majority of manual workers do not receive any such pay? Since the incidence of sickness is about three or four times as great among manual workers as among non-manual workers, is it not the case that where the need is greatest it is being least met? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about it? Will he at least get to know the facts?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that a 1970 survey showed that fewer manual


workers were in receipt of such benefits. There has not been a Government survey since then, but other surveys show that the number is increasing. However, it is better that my Department should be encouraging sick pay schemes rather than reviewing them. That is being done in various ways through the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, to which attention is being drawn all over the country, and through the work of manpower advisers who draw the situation to the attention of the firms.

Employee Participation

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions he has reached about the EEC draft directive concerning employee and shareholder representation on the boards of companies.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Green Paper on Employee Participation.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not the case that the power of top management in private industry, and the highly privileged and self-perpetuating existence which they often lead, is something which, in today's climate of opinion, is more and more being called into question? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we need supervisory boards of the kind contained in this proposal in order to manage the managers and make them more responsible to all those who have a stake in any particular firm?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has taken the matter slightly wider than employee participation by involving the fiduciary obligation of directors of boards to shareholders and their obligation to employees. Those matters will be covered partly in the proposals to be put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend on company law, and they will also be discussed in some detail in the Green Paper on Employee Participation. I do not think that the two-tier board is necessarily the only system of remedying the type of situation which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most important way to advance worker participation is to strengthen the trade union movement and

extend the scope of collective bargaining, and that we shall not be in favour of the importation of a system of works councils which is divorced from trade union structure and which would have the effect of separating the worker from his trade union?

Mr. Macmillan: If the right hon. Gentleman had paid close attention to the proceedings at Blackpool, he would have realised that I made it plain that I did not regard the importation of methods lock, stock and barrel from other countries as being wholly suitable for this country. I also made it plain that, to be effective, any form of employee participation must be based upon the great body of consultation and negotiation which has been built up in the course of our industrial relations history.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Miss Joan Hall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 16th October.—[Vol. 861, c. 22–4]

Miss Hall: Following the Foreign Secretary's remarks last week about consultation with regard to the Middle East war, which does not appear to have finished, can the Prime Minister tell us what consultations he has had with the Commonwealth countries?

The Prime Minister: The problem of the Middle East was discussed by the Heads of Government in the conference in Ottawa, and in our communiqué we made it plain that we wanted to see a peaceful settlement in accordance with Resolution 242 of the Security Council which has now been reaffirmed by the Security Council's recent resolution. During the conflict we have as a Government kept in touch with other Commonwealth Governments in capitals and in New York.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not significant that the right hon. Gentleman's answer did not include any reference to Britain's membership of the EEC? Is it not a fact that


the Commonwealth, regrettably, is disintegrating because of the right hon. Gentleman's insistence on membership of the EEC in preference to Commonwealth interests?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not in the least. My reply did not include any reference to the EEC because the Question was about the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. In my speech the other day I said that, as a result of the recent conference in Ottawa, I believed that the Commonwealth as a whole was in a stronger position than before.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on devolution.

The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend on 24th May, the Government's intention is that further proposals on devolution will be prepared in the light of the report of the Commission on the Constitution and of local government reform. The commission's report will be published on 31st October and I shall make a statement to the House on that day about the Government's proposals for handling it.—[Vol. 857, c 663–4.]

Mr. Taylor: That is good news. Does the Prime Minister realise that those, like myself, who support the proposals for a Scottish Assembly hope that there will be a full opportunity to debate the report when it is published?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The report is a major work which has taken the commission many years to compile, and I am sure that right hon and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want time to consider it carefully.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will publish not only the report but definitive proposals by the Government in the light of the report, or does he propose to leave a period for general discussion and consultation? If he is to publish definitive proposals, will a White Paper be issued containing them so that the House may see them as well as the commission's report?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should make it quite plain. I said that I would make a statement in the House on the day of publication about the Government's proposals for handling the report. We have had the report for only a very short time and we are publishing it as quickly as possible. It will not be possible at that stage for the Government to give their views on the very large number of proposals in the report.

Mr. Gower: As the report is of great interest throughout Wales, will my right hon. Friend ensure that no final decision is reached about Wales without the fullest opportunity for debate and discussion by Welsh Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: No final conclusion will be reached on any aspect of the report until there has been every opportunity for the House to study and debate it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the Prime Minister aware that the commission some years ago undertook a survey of public opinion in Wales which showed that over 60 per cent. of people were in favour of a directly-elected Council for Wales? Will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance, before any proposals are put forward by the Government, that full weight will be given to this significant fact?

The Prime Minister: We shall give full consideration to all the views expressed on the report. Before I enter into any particular aspect of it such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, we ought to see what the commission's recommendations are and the evidence which it heard.

Mr. McLaren: Would not it be a happy thing to have a parliament for those whom Shakespeare described as "the mere English"?

The Prime Minister: It may be that in the course of its investigations the Royal Commission has stumbled over the English.

Mr. Ross: Has the Prime Minister set aside the pledge he gave in the first Queen's Speech after the last election when he stated that the Government would bring proposals before the House in respect of Scottish devolution? Are we to understand that the Government


will not give us any indication of what they propose this side of the next election?

The Prime Minister: Not in the least, and I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could have drawn that conclusion from anything I have said. I said that the House would want adequate time to consider these important proposals and so would the Government. The Government would wish to take account of the views expressed in the House before they made their own proposals. That has not changed in any way, and nothing that I have said today has altered it.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an expert on world-wide weather conditions to the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Such advice is available from the Meteorological Office.

Mr. Skinner: Does that mean that the Prime Minister will no longer blame unusual climatic conditions, such as snow in Siberia, sun in Africa and rain in Manchester, for the astronomical rise in food prices? Shall we hear him at the next General Election declaring loudly to Leicester housewives "We intend to cut prices at a stroke, weather permitting"?

The Prime Minister: I might well be able to give a fuller explanation than the hon. Gentleman has given. Of course, he is right—it was a lack of snow on the Steppes which brought about the poor harvest in the Soviet Union and in China, it was floods in the major soya bean producing area which affected feeding stuffs and it was frosts in Brazil which affected coffee plants. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman has not realised that many of our problems with animal feeding stuffs are due to the drop in fish meal supplies following a sudden change in the direction of the warm current off Peru.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Must it not always be borne in mind that, in the lamentable and unlikely event of the hon.

Member's party becoming the Government, no weather expert will be necessary because we shall know that we shall all be soaked all the time?

DISCHARGED PRISONERS (SOCIAL SERVICES)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security in the provision of social services for discharged prisoners.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Departments are working closely together in a review of the arrangements for discharged prisoners.

Mr. Lamont: Is my right on. Friend aware that the present discharge grant for prisoners has not been adjusted since 1964 and that it is quite inadequate for prisoners who have to obtain accommodation in London and other major cities? Is he aware that many discharged prisoners, contrary to what the Home Office believes, cannot find accommodation without making a down payment, and cannot get social security benefit without first having an accommodation address? Should not our whole social security system be designed to help discharged prisoners to adjust to the world rather than place on them all the pressures that lead to their going straight back to prison?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It is not entirely true that the grant has not been reviewed since 1964, because an additional grant of £4 has been introduced to help a discharged prisoner find accommodation. What is happening now is that the Home Office and the Supplementary Benefits Commission are carrying out an urgent review jointly to see what fresh arrangements should be made. As regards the problem of accommodation, there are 1,700 places in 166 hostels which receive Government grants towards their running costs for this purpose, and the number of places is now increasing at the rate of 260 a year. In the year ended 31st March 1972, which is the latest date for which we have overall figures, the average occupancy was only 74 per cent., and it is thought to have been somewhat lower since then


There may be explanations for this, but the number of places in hostels for discharged prisoners is being increased.

Mr. Dell: When will the review be completed? This matter should be settled shortly. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, even the grant of £4 is not the whole of the story because, if a prisoner on relief has more than £5, £1 is knocked off for every £1 above £5? The situation should be changed rapidly.

The Prime Minister: The Departments will complete this review as quickly as possible, because the problems are now realised.

Miss Quennell: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while this country has often been much preoccupied with penal reform, the after-care of discharged prisoners has often been uninspired and unimaginative in the extreme?

The Prime Minister: I think that there may be some truth in that. As I have said, the Departments are now reviewing the whole question, and we shall do our best to see that matters are improved.

HANDSWORTH

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Handsworth.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise that extra resources have been poured into inner city areas, including part of my constituency, but does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is need for a special Minister with sole responsibility to coordinate the funds in those areas and help tackle their severe and special housing, education and local health and social services problems?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I have given the Home Secretary special responsibility for the co-ordination of work on help for areas of urban deprivation, so there is now a very senior member of the Cabinet who is responsible for the co-ordination for which my hon. Friend asks. As regards the environment, the total approach for which my hon. Friend has asked is being carried out in the study

of six town and inner city centres, and Birmingham is one of these.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Prime Minister realise that we can never tackle problems of urban deprivation when we have the worst housing figures for a decade?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation. In fact, this Government have designed their housing policy in order particularly to help the deprived areas.

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY CONSULTATIONS

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the National Chamber of Trade to join him in his consultations with the CBI and TUC on the Government's counter-inflation policy.

The Prime Minister: The National Chamber of Trade is a member of the Retail Consortium which has played a full part in the consultations on the counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Redmond: Yes, but will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Retail Consortium consists mainly of large firms whereas chambers of trade consist of small shopkeepers who are more directly in touch with the housewives who know what it is to try to meet the rise in the cost of living? Could there not be direct negotiations with the chambers of trade?

The Prime Minister: The chambers of trade always let us know their views, but I think they have found that their membership of the group that came to see us, dealing with the whole of the retail area, was satisfactory.

Mr. Orme: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the operation of the Industrial Relations Act and the court decision yesterday regarding the AEUW, under which, in a simple matter of trade union recognition, affecting 33 employees, a major trade union is being persecuted by the Industrial Relations Court? The simple justice of trade union recognition in this country does not need the Industrial Relations Court. Has the right hon. Gentleman read Sir John Donaldson's one-sided statement on his judgment?


Will the Prime Minister inform the TUC that the Government have now decided to drop the Act, because it could lead to real industrial trouble this winter arising out of cases such as Con-Mech?

The Prime Minister: I have always told the TUC delegation whenever it has had talks with us that it can raise any matter it wishes, and that I am prepared to discuss amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. We have not had any specific amendments or proposals for amendments put to us by either the TUC or, I think, the CBI in any of our talks. That remains the position. We are perfectly prepared to consider amendments to the Act.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with these bodies the abolition of the earnings rule in areas of high over-employment, as 100 extra workers in factories in North-East Essex would mean £1 million of extra exports a year?

The Prime Minister: The matter of the earnings rule has been raised indirectly, so to speak, not as a major item, in the talks. This is a matter that the Government certainly can examine.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have not dared to use the Industrial Relations Act, which is now a dead Act since the disastrous failure of its use in the rail strike, on major issues—for example, last spring with the National Health Service employees, the gas workers and many others—and yet it is continuing to poison industrial relations? Does he not feel that, whatever amendments may or may not have been put forward—the amendment that we and the TUC would put forward would be a simple one-clause Bill—in the grave situation facing the country, both as a result of internal Government policy and now outside threats to the economy, it would be an act of leadership on his part to give notice either that the Act is to be repealed or, as we have often urged, that it is to be put on ice?

The Prime Minister: It will certainly not be repealed. I have said that we will consider amendments. A very large part of the Act is being operated the whole time by both employers and trade unionists, I believe to their great satisfaction.
On the particular matter that has been raised today, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also like to urge that a union should observe the decisions of the court according to the law passed by Parliament. It is a very simple issue indeed. Methods of conciliation are available both to employers and to unions through the court, and I suggest that they be used.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Northern area we have had some really marvellous decisions by the Industrial Relations Court? I hope that there will be no attempt to destroy the basic fabric of the Act.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the basic freedoms in this country is the recognition of trade unions where employees desire that recognition? No law should be manipulated in such a way as it has been against the union to which both my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and I belong to mulct it of great fines. The judge himself, who has been particularly unimaginative in this matter, has suggested that there ought to be amendment of the Act. I suggest that we had better start on it now.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has used phrases about a judge of the court upon which I do not propose to comment. I have always understood that judges in this country are not criticised in Parliament, except on a substantive resolution.
I have already said that a very large part of the Act is being fully operated. I could not possibly accept an accusation that it has been manipulated against a union.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, Mr. Speaker shall not interrupt the proceedings on the Motion relating to Maplin Development [Money] (No. 2) or on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Maplin Development Bill at Seven o'clock and if the proceedings on the Maplin Development Bill are concluded after Seven o'clock, proceedings on the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means


relating to the Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords] set down by direction of the Chairman for consideration at Seven o'clock shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Maplin Development Bill; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to proceedings on the Motion for a period of three hours from the conclusion of proceedings on the Maplin Development Bill or if such proceedings on the said Bill are concluded between Seven o'clock and Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of proceedings on the Bill.—[The Prime Minister.]

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: First I want to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for raising this matter at this stage, because I appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members want to get on to the main business of the House, which is the Maplin Development Bill.
The motion deals with the business of the House and relates immediately to the question of Private Business. We have had assurances from successive Leaders of the House, particularly the present Leader of the House, that Private Business would be brought forward for seven o'clock on the day allocated to it. The Leader of the House recently gave an assurance that such would apply unless exceptional circumstances prohibited the rule applying.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the nature of the Private Business that we are putting back from seven o'clock to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: It will be later than that.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend suggests that it might be later than that. It could well be later than that.
Looking at this and the later suspension motion, I am not sure whether it is specifically clear to the House—it certainly is not specifically clear to me—that if consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill goes beyond 10 o'clock Private Business will have to wait until after 10 o'clock. However, the rule of the House has been that unless there are exceptional circumstances Private Business would come on at seven o'clock.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If the consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill is concluded before seven o'clock, other business will come on until seven o'clock and then the Private Business, to which he has referred, will come on at that time. If consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill is not completed until after seven o'clock, the Private Business, in which he is interested, will come on immediately after the Bill is completed.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Does he imagine for a moment that a controversial issue such as the Maplin Development Bill will be completed by seven o'clock? I do not believe that it will.
The motion allows the Maplin Development Bill to continue until 10 o'clock. I believe that it is extremely unlikely that consideration of Lords amendments to that Bill will be completed before 10 o'clock, because of the intensity of feeling about that Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Therefore, we have a situation in which Private Business is again to he pushed to one side, even though there is considerable controversy on both sides of the House. If the Leader of the House refers to the debate that took place on 4th July he will see that there was great controversy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke against the Ashdown Forest Bill.
It would be bad enough if a specific item of Private Business were being pushed to one side, but we are doing something more than that. Therefore, it is important, particularly from the point of view of back-bench Members, that we should be very careful about the way in which the Government exercise their privileges.
I appreciate that it would be out of order for me at this point to go into the full extent of the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, looking at that motion we see that we are not dealing with the specific issue of a Private Bill; we are


seeking to accommodate its sponsors. We are doing nothing other than accommodating the sponsors of the Bill. We gave notice to the Government at the time—it is in the debate—that when this Bill came back to the House we would fight it to ensure that it did not get on to the statute book.
One of the reasons why this motion appeared on the Order Paper is that the Government knew that if the Bill came up for discussion this week—as it has to do—it would fall. What the Government are doing is compounding an offence. They are saying that they will use the procedures of this House to push Private Bills from seven o'clock to 10 o'clock, against the assurances that have been given by the Leader of the House, and they are proposing to do a wangle on behalf of the sponsors so that they will not have to bring it back in the normal way next Session.
Why is it that although there is controversy about the Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House are opposed to it, the Government seek to overload the Order Paper? if one looks at today's Order Paper, one sees how it is becoming impossible for this House to give consideration to many issues that are coming before it. I should like to give one example of that. I see in the later Notice of Motion that the Government Trading Funds Bill will be dealt with after the Ashdown Forest Bill. But the Government Trading Funds Bill is today in the other place for Report and remaining stages, so that this House will not know about any amendments to that Bill until it comes back to us at some time in the early hours of the morning.
The reason I am raising this matter today and using a procedural motion to deal with it, is that the Order Paper is being overloaded with business which is not given consideration by this House. In many instances, we are in great danger of losing our democratic nature. If a Government, irrespective of their political complexion, can manœuvre the Order Paper and push item after item on to it so that the House never has the opportunity of debating them, what difference will there be between this House and a Parliament in some of the countries which have been described as being

behind the Iron Curtain, or the House of Representatives or Congress in the United States of America?

Mr. John Wells: Mr. John Wells (Maidstone) rose—

Mr. Loughlin: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a speech on this matter. I am not making a party point and I am not arguing about a particular Government. I am arguing that back benchers must be careful about how far they allow the Executive to overload the business of the House and deny them an opportunity of discussing issues.
I am very incensed about this matter and object strongly to the method that is being used in relation to that Bill. To make matters worse, this is just a procedural device to save the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill. I am not arguing about this Private Bill, which may be a good Bill or it may be a bad Bill. I am arguing against the procedural device and, unless the Leader of the House is prepared to withdraw this motion, I am prepared to ask any hon. Member on either side of the House to join me in protesting against this kind of procedure and dividing the House on it.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I start by seeking information and it is not clear to me whether I need guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, or from the Leader of the House. As I read the motion, it states that the Ashdown Forest Bill will come on after the Maplin Development Bill is finished. As I read the Notice of Motion in the name of the Prime Minister, it does not suspend Standing Order No. 1 in respect of the Private Business, the Ashdown Forest Bill, if the Maplin business should run until 10 o'clock. On the other hand, that may be implicit even without this motion. The point on which I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is this: if the motion in the name of the Prime Minister is passed but the Maplin Development Bill debate is still running at 10 o'clock, will the business on the Ashdown Forest Bill, which is referred to on the front of the Order Paper, then fall in the absence of a resolution suspending Standing Order No. 1. or could we suddenly find ourselves reaching the Ashdown Forest Bill at two o'clock in the morning with all the remaining Government orders on Northern


Ireland, the Powers of Criminal Courts Bill, the regulations on Legal Aid and Advice and, eventually, the Landscaping of New Palace Yard at four, five, six, seven or eight o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is for the Leader of the House to elucidate his own motion, not for me.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) for raising this matter, because had he not done so, I would have sought to raise it on a point of order.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Government Trading Funds Bill. Some of us in this House have a concern for that Bill, because it seeks to alter the terms of trade of the Ordnance Survey, Her Majesty's Shipyards and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. That Bill has had a somewhat curious history, but the point is that no notice was given last Thursday that this Bill would be discussed in this House this week. It did not appear in the Order Paper of the House, nor does it appear today among the 21 items which we have on the Order Paper, and it is shown in the Business Motion to be taken at 10 o'clock. Therefore, unless hon. Members read what is usually a technical motion they would not know that it is before the House today, nor would the general public, who have an interest in this Bill, have an opportunity of getting in touch with their Members to make representations or to discuss amendments which have been made.
My hon. Friend mentioned amendments. One has already been made during the Committee stage in another place to delete the Ordnance Survey from the Bill, and I understand that other amendments are likely to be made at about this time. Unless we get an opportunity to read the report of that debate and learn what those amendments are, it will be quite impossible to take this item as the eleventh or twelfth item on the Order Paper today. Furthermore, no due notice would have been given. The Government have acted in this way on another occasion. I came into this House at 12 o'clock one Friday morning and found that a motion concerning the car park had appeared on the Order Paper at nine o'clock, and had gone through on the nod at 11 o'clock.
In view of the generally unsatisfactory nature of the notice to the general public and to hon. Members, I hope the Lord President of the Council will assure us that whilst the Sittings Motion gives an opportunity to discuss the Bill tonight, it will not in fact be discussed today but will be discussed either on Wednesday or Thursday. I hope we can have that assurance now. It is a distinct issue from that of the crowding of the Order Paper and the matter of Ashdown Forest. It is a matter of notice to this House and to the general public. It is also a matter of what is democratically right and proper in this House of Commons.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) on raising this matter. I entirely share the fears expressed by both my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West said that this was an attempt by the business managers in the Government to manoeuvre the Order Paper and its contents. It is a little more serious than that. In my view, it is a deliberate attempt by the business managers to manoeuvre and, if I may say so with repect, abuse the Standing Orders of this House—Standing Orders which are designed, among many other things, to protect the right of individual Members of this House to raise matters on behalf of their constituents and to ensure on behalf of their constituents that matters coming before the House of Commons are properly considered and debated.
I regret that when we have Business Motions of this nature there is this continued attempt to get them accepted on the nod, without debate. We have this afternoon a repetition of what I describe as this evil practice. The Leader of the House is not just a member of the Government. He is the Leader of this House of Commons, with a responsibility to all hon. Members of this House, irrespective of the side on which they may sit or the views which they may wish to express. The attempt is made to get a very complex Business Motion through on the nod without any explanation.
The Leader of the House of Commons intervened and tried to explain the situation in a few words. That is not good enough. One of his hon. Friends has the same difficulty as I have in understanding what all this means. If I may develop the point which the hon. Gentleman made, what is the position if one takes the Business Motion and the other motion on the Order Paper which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton? As I understand it—I may be wrong, and this is why the Leader of the House should explain it and perhaps save time—it means that we shall first take the Maplin Development [Money] (No. 2) Resolution. I assume that that will go through virtually on the nod. I am not certain. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to debate it. Indeed, I may have a few well chosen words to say. I cannot be certain that it will go through on the nod.
I believe that when that has been dealt with, we shall deal with the Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill. I am convinced that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will want to debate at some length and in some detail some of those Lords amendments because the Maplin Development Bill fundamentally affects not just constituencies in the South-East of England but constituencies throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I take it that those two matters will be debated.
Then, under the terms of the Business Motion, if those proceedings, by some miracle, are concluded before seven o'clock, we shall debate the Second Reading of the Powers of Criminal Courts Bill [Lords] until seven o'clock; and then at seven o'clock, provided that the two Maplin Bills have been completed, which is unlikely, we shall move on to consideration of the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
That motion does precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West said: it is a direct intervention by a Business Motion on the side of promoters of private legislation. That is a most serious issue for this House.
When that is done, as I understand the motion, we shall then come to the House of Commons (Services) Committee Report on the Landscaping of New Palace Yard,

over the car park which is being built there.
Then, if one looks at the Business Motion for 10 o'clock, it would seem that with today's business we can also take the Government Trading Funds Bill should any amendments be sent to this House from another place. I assume that all the other matters on the Order Paper will then fall because of expiration of time.
My interpretation of the Order Paper may or may not be correct. It may be that these few minutes which I have occupied in trying to clear my mind of the possible consequences of these motions would have been quite unnecessary if the Leader of the House had moved the motion in a normal manner and had explained its meaning to us. This is a serious situation. This goes far beyond the normal sort of debate on important issues. This is fundamental to the effective democratic working of the House of Commons.
The point that my hon. Friend made about overloading the Order Paper is certainly valid. Not only have we the 10 items already set out on the Order Paper; on top of that we have the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, making 11 items which have been set down by the Government business managers. If to that we add the Government Trading Funds Bill, that makes 12 items which have been put down for debate today. I cannot understand why the Order Paper is so overcrowded today and why we have this unfortunate episode.
The Leader of the House has the responsibility to explain the technicalities of the motion. Another duty of the Leader of the House is to explain why he, as the Leader of all the Members of this House, believes it is necessary to put down a motion of this nature, which, whatever the technical wording may mean, certainly means that the Government are giving facilities for a piece of private legislation in preference to Government business. We need an explanation why the exception is being made. It is no part of the Government's responsibility to make these facilities available to outside interests in the way in which they are making them available today.
There will be considerable public amazement at the Government's attempt to force through all this business today. I find great difficulty in understanding why there should be a necessity at the fag end of the Session to get all this business galloping through in the last few days. After all, we have just returned from a long summer Recess, and at the end of this week we shall be going off on a short recess while we wait for the new Session to open. One day of the summer Recess could have gone a long way towards dealing with many of the motions on the Order Paper.
Like most hon. Members, I greatly welcome the opportunity the long summer Recess gives hon. Members to perform their parliamentary duties in their constituencies. I dare say that at least one or two hon. Members use the Recess for a long summer holiday, but I am not one of them. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides use it to carry out their duty of keeping themselves informed of public opinion, of meeting constituents, of running campaigns of enlightenment in their constituencies. Far from being a holiday, the summer Recess is often the time of the most arduous part of a Member of Parliament's duties. Therefore, I should be loth to tell the Government unnecessarily that that period should be compressed, because the summer Recess is an important part of the total parliamentary democratic process.
But, when one looks at today's Order Paper and tries to cast one's mind ahead to the next two days of the Session, one's mind boggles at the amount of business the Government will try to force through on the nod. Whatever arrangements may or may not have been made between the usual channels, some hon. Members may be so outraged at this blatant attempt to frustrate the rights of individual hon. Members that they take it upon them selves to ensure that democracy works and that things are properly debated even at this late stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) shakes his head. I am sure that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will develop his own views.
We should not allow Parliament to be ridden over roughshsod in this manner.

The Standing Orders contain provisions for the protection of individual Members and adequate provisions for the progress of private legislation.
On another occasion when the same issue had to be raised as a matter of fundamental principle, irrespective of the inconvenience and the delay it caused to important debates that were to follow on that day, the Leader of the House said:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are prepared to honour the undertaking that I gave in answer to a Written Question from my right hon. Friend last November. It is the general rule that we should take private business at 7 o'clock and not put it off until 10 o'clock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 1326.]
That is a pretty solid undertaking. The Leader of the House should have moved the motion and explained the exceptional reasons that led him to allow it to appear on the Order Paper.
Following upon what has happened today and on that occasion back in June, there may well be a case for a complete review of the whole position of private legislation.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Thai is the whole point.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is in such agreement.
In the 1971–72 Session such a proposal in respect of the time for private legislation and the manner in which it should be taken was considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. My right hon. Friend and the Patronage Secretary jointly put a proposal to the Committee, a body of distinguished parliamentarians of great experience, knowledge and understanding of the careful balance that must be struck between the right of the Government to get their legislation and the right of individual hon. Members to exercise their democratic duty to ensure that all legislation is adequately debated and that objectionable legislation is opposed with great enthusiasm and energy. In its wisdom, the Committee came down against the two Chief Whips of the major parties.
At paragraph 8 of its report the Committee said:
The loss of opportunities to debate delegated legislation has led to a breakdown in that part of the process of legislation,


—we can all say, "Hear, hear" to that—
and Your Committee are accordingly concerned to safeguard proceedings on private legislation. They recommend that there should be no change in the time at which the House has at present an opportunity to debate business which, although on occasion of apparently minor importance, is often of national significance.
Because of the breakdown of the right of the House to debate such legislation at a reasonable time, not at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning, the Select Committee decided against the two right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the office of Chief Whip of the major parties.
In view of the Select Committee Report and the undertaking by the Leader of the House in June, it is a bit much when they—I exclude my right hon. Friend, because on this occasion he is not guilty of complicity in the matter; by "they" I mean the Government busines managers—try to slip through on the nod this sort of thing, contrary to all the undertakings and the sound findings of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) who chaired the Select Committee.
If the House, the two Chief Whips or any other hon. Members wish to change the rules of the House, they should do it openly by a proper motion on the Order Paper at the beginning of the Session asking for the authority to change the Standing Orders, so that we may properly debate it.
I hope that my hon. Friends who are now discussing which of them is to be successful in catching your eye are taking due note of my few remaining words about the Business Motion. If we wish to change the rules, let it be done openly, above board and with proper debate. If private legislation is to be properly debated and is to continue to be a proper and fairly substantial part of Parliament's business, it will have to come on in normal parliamentary time between 3.30 p.m. and 10 o'clock and not be shuffled off until the late evening and even the early hours of the morning.
If that is the value put upon Private Business we had better stop taking it. If to find the time means that we reduce the opportunities for hon. Members to do their duty in their constituencies, so be it; it will have to be part of the price we pay. I hope the Leader of the House

will state clearly why he, the protector of the rights of all hon. Members, considers it right that the Government should give special facilities to the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill. Perhaps he will explain, too, why he considers it right that this House should be required. perhaps in the early hours of the morning, to discuss Lords amendments to the Government Trading Funds Bill and why this imposition should be put upon the democratic process of Parliament.
I hope, when he has explained, that he will agree to withdraw the Business Motion and will seek the support of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to do so. Let the Ashdown Forest Bill stand or fall in this Session on its merits. We should not try to shuffle it over into the next Session of Parliament. If these assurances are not given, I can promise my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West that I will stand as a Teller with him and divide the House on the motion. It is a motion that all hon. Members should seek to oppose because it strikes at the very roots of parliamentary democracy.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I find the concern expressed on the Labour benches for parliamentary democracy most interesting. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say how often in the last three years a similar motion to carry over a Bill until the next Session has been permitted. So far as I recall, this is not the first time.
On the Government Trading Funds Bill—the point was raised by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)—I was a member of the Standing Committee which met on 3rd July. It commenced at 10.30 p.m. and ceased at 10.32 p.m. and of the seven members of the Opposition entitled to be present only three were in fact present; none said a word and the business was concluded. Indeed, had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), no word would have been uttered. The only words spoken were his vote of thanks to a member of the Chairman's panel for taking the Chair. I cannot help feeling that the House is being led slightly astray on this issue.
I can understand the points raised by the hon. Members for Gloucestershire.


West (Mr. Loughlin) and Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). But, again, I suggest that they are perhaps taking the House along a slightly different path from that which it ought to follow. We are discussing in their case a precedent which is not a precedent. The Government Trading Funds Bill had, if I recall correctly, a Second Reading Committee and a Committee stage at which members of the Opposition did not appear to wish to participate.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) is correct in what he says about the Committee stage of the Bill. There was no Committee discussion and the Second Reading Committee was not printed. We did not know of its existence. The Bill is highly controversial to members of the public. On Report there was a lengthy debate. Therefore, if there is a failure, it is a failure of scrutiny by all hon. Members. I and some of my hon. Friends caught it in time and we scrutinised this controversial Bill. The hon. Member for Hampstead is perhaps slightly mistaken.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Member's explanation puts an interesting complexion on the matter but it does not change the situation. I did not see the hon. Member for Acton as a member of the Committee. His hon. Friends had an opportunity of making their points. The Bill does not change policy. It seeks only to change the accounting methods.

Mr. Spearing: Rubbish.

Mr. Finsberg: That appeared to be the situation. In any case, my right hon. Friend has done again in the Business Motion what has been done in the past under both Governments and under previous Leaders of the House. I am sure the hon. Member will be much happier taking 14 minutes of the time of the Services Committee than taking the time of the House.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I shall not take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in his complaint at the way in which the Govern-

ment are handling the Trading Funds Bill. It may seem a trivial matter to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) but it affects several hundred of my constituents who work at the Ordnance Survey at Southampton. It may be unimportant for him but for them it is not, and it is disgraceful that we should be asked to deal with amendments from the other place when the other place is only this afternoon taking the Report and remaining stages of the Bill. We are being asked to accept Lords amendments that we have not seen and without having had an opportunity to read the proceedings of the debate in the other place.
The Government are treating the House with contempt, and there is no reason why they cannot postpone the Bill until tomorrow. If they did that, we could have printed amendments. An amendment was moved by my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Shackleton, in Committee in the other place, which fundamentally affects the future of the Ordnance Survey and which will have to be considered by this House. He moved the deletion of a part of the Bill and we have no idea whether the Government intend to try to reinstate that part on Report today. I appeal to the Government to let us consider the Bill tomorrow so that we may have something before us to discuss. I urge them not to dismiss it as a triviality. It affects large numbers of our constituents.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has done a severe disservice to the House. He should recognise that responsibility for the Government Trading Funds Bill is not that of some Committee but is the responsibility of the whole House. If he had been present on the night it was debated by the House he would know how deep and far-reaching were the fears and doubts of some hon. Members.
I wish to make two points in support of my hon. Friends the Members for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). It is a bad principle for democracy and for considered parliamentary debate that we should be asked in the small hours to deal with Lords amendments which have


been made in the other place on the same day and about which we know nothing until literally the eleventh hour. I ask the Leader of the House, for this if for no other reason, to reconsider the situation. There is a great deal of contempt among the public, rightly or wrongly, for what goes on in Parliament. This is the way to add fuel to the flames.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, said that the interests of several hundred of his constituents were at stake. I, together with some other hon. Members, represent several thousand constituents whose interests are at stake through this Bill. To say it is a trivial Bill and of no significance is a misleading statement. It is a Bill with great potential for the future in terms of the power it gives those in control of the employment of people to alter, for example, the activities of the Naval Dockyards by Order in Council and to change the whole working environment and pattern of priorities laid down for the work of those Government institutions.
Where there are thousands of industrial and non-industrial civil servants affected by such legislation—people directly employed by the Government—there is a double responsibility upon this House to look seriously, soberly and responsibly at the implications of proposed legislation. Even at this stage I ask the Leader of the House to assure us that he will find some way to enable us properly to consider what has gone on in another place so that we may have a sensible and informed discussion tomorrow or Thursday.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am a little amused at what has been taking place this afternoon in that I can well understand this Government at any rate doing what they are doing with the Order Paper. It does not surprise me. It was this Government which introduced, without a mandate, all the measures we have been debating in the past three years. My mind goes back to the Industrial Relations Act—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed considerable latitude but we cannot re-debate that.

Mr. Skinner: It does not surprise me that I am the first one to be pulled up.

Mr. Speaker: It may be because the hon. Member is the first person to go too wide.

Mr. Skinner: It may be because of some other reason. I listened closely to what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said. He covered a wide area indeed and there was not a bat from your eyelid, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is analogous to the argument. I find it embarrassing at times to hear hon. Members complaining about the arrangements with the Order Paper when we all know that the rule of thumb for this Government—it might have been applied by others, I do not know—is, "We will do as much as we can get away with."
When the discussion arose in the past few days my guess is that the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary got their heads together and said, "We have got a busy time. We have all of these Lords amendments to deal with, there are several other minor matters. How much can we pile on? Hon. Members will want to get away. There is another short break from Thursday onwards, returning on the Tuesday. How much can we get away with?" That is how this place operates.
It never surprises me at all that this Government should, in their steamroller fashion, do what they have done the whole of the time I have been here. I was on the Housing Finance Bill in Committee. I saw that guillotined. We saw the Industrial Relations Bill guillotined. We were dragged into the Common Market without proper debate and now we get all high and mighty about the Ashdown Forest Bill. I am not surprised, but there is a lesson in this for the Labour Party. This is why I have spoken today. If we cannot learn lessons from what this lot have done during the course of the past three years and remember them when we get the opportunity to act on behalf of the working class, we do not deserve to be in government.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Two separate points arise. The first, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), has to do with the other place considering amendments at this moment. That must be, and I am sure will be, looked at by the Leader of the


House. The idea that those amendments wil come here tonight to be confirmed by this House gives rise to the anxiety my hon. Friend expressed. I suspect he may know that the amendments concerned are favourable to his point of view but that, of course, is nothing to do with the relevant facts of the argument. I suggest that on that point the House could perhaps consider such amendments tomorrow evening.
The other matter which has been raised, that of the time of the House being interrupted by opposed Private Business, is a hardy annual. I have been Government Chief Whip and I must say there is nothing more frustrating—I am glad that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is listening—for a Government trying to find time for their own business than to have to move away from it at the sacrosanct hour of seven o'clock until 10 o'clock to allow time for Private Business. This is often in the middle of an Opposition Supply Day. As Opposition Chief Whip I have had to give up half a Supply Day.
In spite of the views of the Procedure Committee, which are not necessarily right, I believe that the time is long overdue, recognising all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) about the importance of Private Business, for an arrangement to be reached whereby a day will be set aside, preferably a Friday, for this kind of business to be dealt with once a month. The House must understand clearly that whoever is in Government, under our present procedures, they have, quite rightly, to find 29 days for the Opposition. I think there should be more, but I do not press that. A Government must find time for the sort of interruptions we are talking about here. There is also time to be found for Private Members—quite rightly. Within all of that the Government have to arrange a schedule for their own business.
It would be humbug if I said it was unusual for there to be a conglomeration of business at the end of a Parliament's life. I have had it. It may be that it could have been sorted out differently if Parliament had sat for much longer than might have been wished. I am always interested to hear hon. Members saying how willing they are to come back here. I am glad to see them at any time.

Mr. Skinner: Some of them mean it.

Mr. Mellish: That cap is to be worn only by those whom it fits.

Mr. Skinner: Why not name them?

Mr. Mellish: I am not doing that. I have a good reputation for not naming anyone.
I understand the reasons for this motion. Although there were no usual channels discussions on it, I understood that it was the hope and prayer of the Government—and they can only do a bit of praying on these matters—that because many of the amendments affecting the Maplin Bill were favourable to those opposed to the scheme the discussion on the amendments would be disposed of by seven o'clock and the way would be clear for the debate on opposed Private Business. That was my impression, but in the light of these discussions I do not know when the amendments affecting the Maplin Bill will be concluded. If there is a Division, I shall not vote against the Government. I say quite frankly, as the Opposition Chief Whip, that I understand how this came about and I wish the Procedure Committee would look at it again. We cannot go on with this question of Private Business constantly coming up in this way. There should be a separate day for it.

4.29 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I thank the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for what he said. May I respond to the hon. Members for Acton (Mr. Spearing), Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) who raised the subject of the Government Trading Funds Bill. It is true that these are amendments conceding points made following representations to us in another place. For all that, in view of what has been said, we will put off consideration of these amendments until tomorrow.
I am determined that we should not get into a muddle over a debate late at night on the future of New Palace Yard. If this is to go late at night, which I think might happen in view of the debate we have had, I will withdraw the motion and put it down for next Session. The only point about getting it through was that there was some question about the


ordering of materials. Those placing the orders will have to wait until the House has considered this at the proper time of day.
This is an important matter. I wish to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who I believe gets more like Brian Clough every day. He can take that as a compliment, or in whatever way he wishes. I turn to the other two related points, first the motion which would enable the Maplin business to be disposed of before we move on to the Private Bill. This was done entirely for the convenience of the House because it would have been a nonsense to have interrupted the Maplin business, for perhaps a quarter of an hour, or half an hour, in the course of the debate purely because we had to take a Private Bill.
As the Opposition Chief Whip said, we thought that the Lords amendments to the Maplin Bill would not take very long and we put this motion down as a precautionary measure. I still advise the House to allow the motion to stand. We will take the Ashdown Forest Bill motion immediately after we have finished the Maplin debate, at whatever time that is. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was designed to help hon. Members in all parts of the House and to make for a reasonable debate.
I note what the Opposition Chief Whip said about time set down for Private Business, but I gave the House the undertaking that we would continue with Private Business at 7 p.m. except under very exceptional circumstances, and this could have been one of those circumstances today.
Regarding the motion to carry the Bill over from this Session, I remind the House that we have already moved three such motions this Session and so the precedents for which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) asked are there for all to see. They are the Zetland County Council Bill, the Harwich Harbour Bill and the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill.
The present position regarding the Ashdown Forest Bill is that it has completed its Committee stage and awaits consideration on Report, and then Third Reading. These Bills cost a lot of time and money and I do not think the House

does itself much good by making the promoters go to the expense of reintroducing such a Bill in the next Session. It is possible that the House would do itself far more harm than good and that the procedure which we are now adopting, of allowing these Bills to go over, is the right and responsible one to take. This procedure will in no way prevent the House from reaching a decision on this Bill next Session. It merely saves money and the inconvenience of having to start all over again.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend not grasped the point that the Committee which examined the Bill wanted to amend it in an important respect but that because of the way in which the Bill was drafted it cannot be so amended? Therefore, if the corrective action is to be taken, it can be taken only in one of two ways—either by the Bill being withdrawn or by it failing to pass into legislation. It has to he reintroduced de novo to encompass the corrections which the Committee wanted to put into the Bill. This Government motion attempts completely to frustrate what the Committee which examined the Bill was trying to achieve.

Mr. Prior: In that case the Bill will go forward to the next Session and will be defeated, presumably, because it does not do what it should do. Then it will be up to the promoters to reintroduce it. If the promoters have made a fundamental mistake in the way in which they wish the Bill to be enacted, that is a matter for them. It is not a matter of principle whether the Government, acting in a position of neutrality, should allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session. I admit that I did not have the information which my hon. Friend mentioned, but it does not alter the principle of the matter. My hon. Friend has made his point but it does not alter the principle of allowing the Bill to go forward to the next Session.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Leader of the House has made a generous concession to the promoters of private legislation in that he has made it clear that it is Government policy to facilitate the carrying over of private legislation because it is expensive to promoters. Will he extend the same generous facility to individual hon. Members who promote Private


Members' legislation, which is also expensive and time-consuming, and so put all on the same par as outside vested interests by moving suspension motions on Private Members' legislation?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is becoming more ingenious every moment. He will not expect me to give him an answer on that today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Vested interest."] There is no question of vested interest in this. The House will accept that I have gone a long way to try to meet the points raised. I hope that we can now conclude this debate and get on with the business which was set down. We have had a reasonable debate on this question, although I recognise that not every hon. Member will be satisfied by what I have said. I cannot answer my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) completely, except to say that I have before me a full report of the discussions on the Ashdown Forest Bill and I do not see in that report the major objection which he raised.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Almost an hour ago I asked Mr. Speaker whether if the Government motion which we are now debating were passed, and should the Maplin Development Bill run to 10 o'clock—and that would be less than 25 minutes per amendment, which seems quite possible—since Standing Order No. 1 and Standing Order No. 3 are quite categoric and do not exempt Private Bills, and since the Government motion does not suspend Standing Order No. 1 in favour of the Ashdown Forest Bill, it means that the Notice of Motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means fails if it is not reached by 10

o'clock. Your predecessor in the Chair, who was Mr. Speaker, suggested that I should put this question to the Leader of the House instead of to him. The Leader of the House is now about to sit down, and if he does not answer this point we shall not know the position.

Mr. Prior: I apologise. I have checked on this matter. If the Maplin Development Bill over-runs to 7 p.m. or even 10 p.m., the Ashdown Forest Bill will be protected by the Prime Minister's motion to enable a three-hour debate to take place on it. Thus, whatever time it comes up for discussion it will be protected for three hours by the motion in the Prime Minister's name.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, how that can be so, because the Prime Minister's motion reads:
… that at this day's Sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, Mr. Speaker shall not interrupt the proceedings on the Motion relating to Maplin Development [Money] (No. 2) or on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Maplin Development Bill at Seven o'clock …
However, nowhere does the motion say that the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means is encompassed within the three-hour extension. Is it not the case that the Leader of the House has, no doubt inadvertently, advised the House contrary to what the Standing Order together with this motion actually says?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I do not think that that is the case.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 35.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[4.40 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Cooke, Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Coombs, Derek


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowden, Andrew
Cooper, A. E.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bray, Ronald
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick


Astor, John
Brewis, John
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Humphrey
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Costain, A. P.


Austick, David
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buchanan-Smith- Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Balniel, Rt. tin. Lord
Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Campbell. Pt- Hn- G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dixon, Piers


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chapman, Sydney
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Benyon, W.
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark. William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy




Fidler, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman
Sandys Rt. Hn. D.


Fox, Marcus
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shersby, Michael


Gilmour, Ian (Nortolk, C.)
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Glyn Dr. Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Gray, Hamish
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Steel, David


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maude, Angus
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sutcliffe, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernle
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Havers, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Tope, Graham


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hicks, Robert
Nott, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John
Waddington, David


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Weatherill, Bernard


Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wilkinson, John


James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmond, Robert
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Younger, Hn. George


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke




NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Kerr, Russell
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
Machin, George
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tinn, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W)
Mikardo, Ian



Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Mr. Charles Loughlin and


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, Mr. Speaker shall not interrupt the proceedings on the Motion relating to Maplin Development [Money] (No. 2) or on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Maplin Development Bill at Seven o'clock, and if the proceedings on the Maplin Development Bill are concluded after Seven o'clock, proceedings on the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means relating to the Ashdown Forest Bill

[Lords] set down by direction of the Chairman for consideration at Seven o'clock shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Maplin Development Bill; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to proceedings on the Motion for a period of three hours from the conclusion of proceedings on the Maplin Development Bill or if such proceedings on the said Bill are concluded between Seven o'clock and Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the Division I was a Teller in the Lobby. I saw one of the Opposition Whips standing in the centre of the "No" Lobby entrance. He was obviously stopping Members from going into that Lobby. May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the Member whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is talking about. When my hon. Friend talks to some of the Members who went through the Lobby to which he has referred, he will find that what he has been saying is opposite to what took place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot help further.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

4.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reclamation from the sea of certain land for the establishment of an airport and a seaport in southeast Essex, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants for or towards:—

(a) the provision of installations for facilitating the use of a navigable channel in Havengore Creek; and
(b) the reduction, by conversion of vessels navigating Havengore Creek, of the clearance above water level required by them.
The House had a substantial debate on the Money Resolution appertaining to the Bill when it was previously before the House. That resolution covered the major expenditure of the Maplin Development Authority—namely, its reclamation work, its research and design work and the major points of compensation which are provided for in the Bill. For most practical purposes, of course, hardly any of that expenditure can now take place until the report has been made to the House, until my right hon. Friend has made an order and until Parliament has agreed that the work of reclamation shall commence.
The present Money Resolution is a much more modest and technical matter. It arises because the Lords Amendment to Clause 10 is aimed at assisting those Members of the Select Committee and the sailors of Essex who wish to facilitate their continued use of Havengore Creek when it is crossed by the access links to, Maplin. The grants covered by the resolution are of two kinds. The first kind of grant is to boat owners so that they can convert their boats by installing, for example, arrangements for lowering their masts. Secondly, the resolution provides for grants to the Maplin Development Authority for the purpose of providing facilities to make navigation of the new Havengore Creek a practical proposition for small boats. That will be done, for example, by providing


moorings or slipways at either end of the passage under the bridges. I envisage that in both cases grants would be up to 100 per cent. on reasonable expenditure. The total sum involved will not be large and, of course, will be subject to strict Treasury control.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

RECLAMATION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND IN MAPLIN AREA

Lords Amendment: No., in page 2, line 4, after "may" insert
after such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".

Read a Second time

4.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I offered a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 1. If that manuscript amendment were accepted, am I right in thinking that the amendment would be taken first? It will be within your recollection that the amendment is to delete "less" and to substitute "more". The amendment is one which I hope the Government and my hon. Friends will find acceptable and which will commend itself to the House. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that it is an amendment which the House will have the opportunity to debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment in question has not been selected.

Mr. David Crouch: I beg to move, as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1. after "date" insert
not being less than two years after the date of the passing of this Act".
In the short debate preceding the consideration of the Bill, some observations were passed from both Front Benches to the effect that it was hoped that the House would move on rapidly to consideration of the Bill. It appeared to be suggested by both Front Benches that we would dispose rapidly of the Maplin Development Bill.
Whilst I do not intend to delay right hon. and hon. Members, the House should not think of the Bill as something to be


disposed of in haste. It needs further consideration. The action which was taken in another place and the amendments which have been sent to this House merit further consideration and study in depth. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench recognise that.
My amendment is about time. I seek to ask the Government for an assurance that they will not put undue pressure on the consideration of the many problems which will have to be faced in the execution of the Bill. Therefore, it is necessary for me to explain why it is necessary to write into the Bill the extra requirement of a two-year pause—I shall not say "delay"—so that this consideration shall be given the full and thorough inquiry and investigation which I believe it merits.
It could be argued that the Government are fundamentally right to build the next airport miles away from anywhere and as far as possible away from the people who will want to use it. That is an argument because, as the Government have said, they are aiming to build an environmental airport. However, it could be argued that that does not make economic sense. The nationalised airlines have advised against it. It could be argued, too, that two former chairmen, one of BEA and one of BOAC, have said that the decision to proceed with Maplin is wrong. It could also be properly taken into account that the former chairman of the British Airways Board, Sir Peter Masefield, fought when he was chairman, and continues to fight hard now he has retired, against the decision to proceed.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I hope that my hon. Friend will not assume that Southend, which is six miles from the proposed airport, is miles from anywhere.

Mr. Crouch: I have been guilty of casting a serious reflection on the qualities of all the people who live in and around the South-East Essex coast. I offer my apologies to my hon. Friend and to all those persons living in that area, who are of great consequence. It is because of those persons and other persons who live on the other side of the estuary, in Kent, that I am prompted to ask for

the requirement of extra time to consider the matter.
It could also be taken into account that the Roskill Commission did not recommend Maplin as the choice for the third London airport. The commission termed it "an inaccessibly sited airport". Further, I remind the House that Sir Colin Buchanan, who wrote the minority report, did not say that Maplin was the right site for Britain's next major airport. Last month the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said in its recommendation to the Government that the Maplin project should be written off.
It could be argued that the Maplin site is fundamentally wrong to serve the United Kingdom as a whole. I shall say something more about that later. It could be said that the next major airport should be in the Midlands, the North-East or the North-West.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Or the South-West.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: Or the South-West. It could be said that there is a danger of overloading the South-East with development money and that the provision of this airport and seaport would he to the detriment of other more deserving regions. In short, it could be argued that there is no case for Maplin, as I have recently argued in an article shortly to be published.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Waltham-stow, East): Is my hon. Friend saying that there is a case for a third international airport?

Mr. Crouch: I am saying that we need time to find out whether there is a case for a third airport and where it should be. I am still in some doubt where the Government stand on this interesting argument which I have tried to pose. It is clear that they want the Bill, but they seem to have paused in their headlong dash into the unknown. They have accepted the decision of this House made in June that there should he consultations with the appropriate authorities regarding new factors in aerospace technology with particular reference to the development of quieter engines and short take-off and landing aircraft; and that as a result of such consultations—consultations which


they promised to make and have written into the Bill—they would
delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport
if those consultations lead them to such a conclusion.
I maintain that the Government could have removed this irritating clause and brought it back into the House with the whole procedure of a strong Whip and a bulldozer and in that way could have got their Bill. But they did not remove that clause; they did not take out this irritation, if it is regarded as an irritation. The clause which we put into the Bill when it went through the Commons is a clause for delay. This is why I speak of the need for building around that clause a statement of what those delays will be.
Why did not the Government remove the clause when the Bill was in the other place? I know that it can be said that they are bowing to the express will of Parliament when we debated this matter in June. But not only have they retained the clause or the real meaning of it; they have fundamentally strengthened it in the other place, and I am glad about that. The Government have made it the duty of the Secretary of State to consult and to report back to Parliament. Why have they strengthened the Bill? They have done so because they recognise that there could be a possible case against Maplin and they want to be sure that they have prepared a well-planned escape route.
But something else has happened since we last debated the subject. On 12th September the Secretary of State made a speech about the Maplin project in which he indicated generally that it would be delayed two years. He said that the project would not be required as early as he had thought, and certainly not as early as Roskill originally mentioned—in other words that it would need to come into operation not by 1980 but more likely by 1982. This view was substantially supported by the Under-Secretary of State, who elaborated on that delay in a speech on 25th September. Therefore, in effect, we have two more years to consider all the factors concerning the wisdom of building this airport and seaport on the Thames Estuary. This will mean more time and less haste in respect of any consultations with the specialist advisers to

whom the Government have now decided they must talk.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I think the hon. Gentleman accidentally misinterpreted what the Secretary of State said on this subject. I understood him to say not that he had deferred the arrival of the airport for two years because he wanted to do so but that he had found himself inevitably forced by circumstances reluctantly to delay the matter for two years. On reflection, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that mine is the correct interpretation, rather than the one which he attempted to give to the House a moment ago.

Mr. Crouch: I cannot promise that I shall necessarily follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) in his deductions about what Ministers have said. We tend to make our own deductions about what Ministers say. I had the impression that the Minister was seeking to give himself a little more breathing space and elbow room in case he recognised that there was something in the arguments which were being advanced to him by so many expert authorities as to where both the seaport and the airport developments should be. But no doubt the hon. Gentleman will soon have his opportunity to make his own contribution to this discussion.
I maintain that the Secretary of State was determined to ensure that he did not commit a folly in this respect. This week we are discussing two very large, prestigious projects—Maplin today and the Channel Tunnel later in the week. It is interesting to think that both projects are to be decided in one week. I cannot blame the Secretary of State for his last-minute hesitation over Maplin. I want to ensure that we use profitably and productively the two-year delay which he so generously offered us. We have a duty to help the Secretary of State out of his difficulties. I am not making a last stand about this matter but a last effort to help the Minister over some of his burdens this week relating to these two great projects.
We have heard that the construction of Maplin would hamper the development of the reduction of noise around Heathrow and Gatwick. Some observations have been made by advisers on this question. We have heard that the enormous expenditure at Maplin to build an


"environmental" airport could result in not relieving Heathrow and Gatwick of noise at all, and we should end up with an inaccessible, uneconomic airport in the Thames Estuary 50 miles from London. I do not say that this is the case, but this is still the view of many people.
I do not argue that we do not need more airports, but I believe that we should build them in the right places to serve the United Kingdom as a whole. What is the sense of an airport 50 miles from London, 150 miles from Birmingham and 250 miles from Manchester'? I must remind the Secretary of State that James Agate was wrong, and that civilisation does not end at Potters Bar.

Mr. Robert Adley: Anybody who has been to National Airport, Washington, since the opening of Dulles Airport, Washington, knows that it is sheer fallacy to think that because one builds an airport miles from the centre the airport which continues to be housed in the centre of the city makes life any more pleasant for those who are unfortunate enough to live around it. This is a deception with which many delude themselves.

Mr. Crouch: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's observation. I have landed at both airports. I do not think that Dulles Airport is a long way from the centre of Washington. Washington is not a great complex like London, and the situation is not so difficult. In modern terms the journey from Dulles Airport to the centre of Washington is the sort of distance about which we must think in terms of the urban sprawl of a city.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend said that the proposed airport at Maplin would be inaccessible. Does he not appreciate that the proposed journey from London to Heathrow by the new tube extension will take 40 minutes and that the proposed journey from London to Maplin would take exactly the same amount of time? Therefore, it is not fair to say that Maplin would be inaccessible.

Mr. Crouch: Certain things have been set in train—I do not intend to make a pun—and the Underground development at Heathrow is already under way. I do him time to hold such consultations, make

not know when it will be developed. The proposed rail connection linked with railways in London have not yet been announced. They will be enormous, and we will no doubt hear something about them. I am sure that the Government want two more years to consider all these massive problems and this massive expense at a time of considerable inflation.
We speak of Maplin costing around £1,000 million at 1972 prices. I am not being difficult to-day when I remind the Government of the concern in the House and in the country about this sort of expenditure and the immense transport infrastructure that Maplin will require.
It could be argued—I accept this—that there is a case for Maplin. But there is also a strong case against it. I am not saying this afternoon that the Bill must not go forward, although if Government business advisers want us to hurry it forward and would willingly take it away this afternoon I would be the first to congratulate them and to withdraw my amendment in support. I do not think that is the Government's intention.
In talking about the delay—which I think is so important—and the need for two more years, we must not ignore the consideration of the Midlands, the North-East, the North-West and the South-West. It may take two years for this idea to be absorbed in some of those areas of Whitehall where Ministers receive their advice and where national planning seems to be confined entirely to suiting London and the South-East.
I am asking for the extra time to be written into the Bill. The Government have said that another two years is available. They should therefore let us know their earnest of intent by putting this into the Bill. It has been said in another place, by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that there is a need to
… press on with our planning for all aspects of the Maplin project."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 17th October, 1973, Vol. 345, c.310.]
Press on, yes. But I believe we should have a statutory delay of two years before we start reclamation, so that, under Clause 2(9), this duty that the Government have taken to consult so many other advisers, can be properly effected and not rushed. So that we can help the Secretary of State in his present task, we must give


a study, and report back to Parliament. We do not want him to make a mistake.
The two years are needed by the Government to study "all the factors" affecting the need for the project. Again, I quote Lord Drumalbyn. What are these factors? They are the likely demand and capacity of our existing airports in Britain, the effect of the Channel Tunnel, the trends in aircraft size, reduction in aircraft engine noise, the development of short take-off and landing aircraft, and the prospects for the future supply of aviation fuel which is now becoming an immediate thought in everybody's mind. In future, it could well be cheaper to travel to and from Europe by rail through the Channel Tunnel rather than waste valuable aviation fuel in flying. It could be that that will be a more convenient way of travelling. It could even be a more favoured route to this country for many foreigners coming to Europe to land in France and take a train to London.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my hon. Friend heard of the possibility of anyone travelling to America by the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Crouch: I was talking about Europe. It could well be, as interventions have shown, that some persons might well choose to take a train to Paris and pick up a plane at Orly or Roissy-en-France.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if this took place and people tended to go by rail to Paris, Britain would lose a considerable amount of air revenue?

Mr. Crouch: Yes. I am concerned about that. That is why I do not want us to build an inaccessible airport which no one will use. I would use Roissy Airport in France if I were an American, and take an excellent train under the Channel and

5
"(9) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, the National Ports Council, the Port of London Authority, the Maplin Development Authority and such other persons as appear to him appropriate, and shall lay a report of the consultations and of his conclusions before Parliament and shall state in that report his assessment of the effect on other regions of any development to be carried out in or near the area in which land is to be reclaimed.";


10

end up at Victoria. I would not want to land in South-East Essex. I would still want to go to Heathrow or Gatwick or possibly Roissy Airport, or Schipol.

Mr. James Allason: Since the rail trip to Paris would take 3 hours 40 minutes, how much time would it then take to reach the French air terminal in order to catch a plane to the United States?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I have no idea. I have been with a Select Committee of this House to look at the development problems of Roissy Airport. No doubt there would be the sort of delays associated with other airports. But people are not going to enjoy ending up at Foulness—or Maplin, as it is called—so far from anywhere, apart from Southend. If anyone wanted to go to Southend that would no doubt be ideal.
The other major factor which must be taken into account in these two years and which will want to be studied is the relative importance of regional airports-factors which have been pointed out to the Government in recent advice by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
The Maplin seaport tends to get carried along on the tide—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. If the hon. Member is going on further I must bring the attention of the House to the fact that the Chair has been lax in its duties. I was lax deliberately, but it seemed to me that, as the hon. Member's speech went on, it would be for the convenience of the House if, instead of discussing just Lords Amendment No. 1, plus Amendment No. 1 to it—which is now being moved—we could discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37, at end insert:


Amendments No. 3 to Lords Amendment No. 4, in line 9, after 'conclusions', insert:
'thereon and his assessment of the probable effects of the road and rail communications to the proposed development on the environment of London and the South East';
Amendment No. 4 to Lords Amendment No. 4, in line 9, after 'conclusions', insert:
'thereon and his assessment of the probable effect of the proposed Channel Tunnel on the proposed development';
and Lords Amendment No. 12, in page 13, line 25, leave out Clause 25.
This would considerably widen the scope of the debate and would probably be for the convenience of hon. Members and the House. If that be agreed, I call the hon. Member to resume.

Mr. Crouch: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I imagine that by that you mean that I am now in order, when I might have been out of order before. I was saying that we need time to consider the question of the suitability of Maplin as a major seaport development. It can be argued that it is an ideal project. We have heard many arguments in favour of the fact that the water there is deep enough for an oil terminal and that there are deep water facilities for a container port. But all this must take time. The Government have a duty, which they have accepted, to consult the National Ports Council.
It is right that we should think twice before deciding to bring 500,000-ton tankers up the narrows of the Channel and into the Thames Estuary. Our objective should not be to provide a new home for the Port of London Authority at the bottom of the road or river but rather to decide on the right place for the major oil terminal and the biggest container port in Britain if not in this part of Europe.
I am by no means convinced that Maplin is the proper choice when considered on a national basis. I cannot imagine that the experts of the National Ports Council are going to be rushed into their recommendations. I should like to think they will be given plenty of time. All these requirements will need to be carried out under Clause 2(9) of the Bill, and the Secretary of State is required to report back to Parliament.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Does my hon. Friend realise that none of us has seen the plans for the port? The National Ports Council has not seen the plans. How can it go ahead?

Mr. Crouch: I am seeking not to be difficult but to help my right hon. and learned Friend, who may be in some difficulty later. I am not trying to overstress the point, but merely to say that I want to give him time. I hope that the House will grant this extra time and that he will accept it and say, "Thank you, I will write it into the Bill; you have saved my bacon again." Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will want to say something about the seaport later. But time is not on the Government's side for carrying out the enormous task of consultation. We should not press them unduly—certainly not to cause any rush decision. We should give them time to make those studies and to be sure they are right. I suggest that we should recognise that and give them the time. The Government have said that there will be no major reclamation—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Is it not also incumbent on the Government to give adequate time for local authorities which are being consulted to prepare their point of view? That has not been done.

Mr. Crouch: I can speak only for the local authority that I know—the Kent County Council—which has told me that the Government have fallen over backwards to consult it and have been generous in the time given. I agree that such consultations must be meaningful and if there are strong representations from such local authorities I hope that the Government will give time to digest them and report to the House any protests or otherwise about the environment which they may receive from those local authorities.
The Government accept that there will be no major reclamation or construction work until Parliament has decided whether there is a case for Maplin. To me, that is excellent. In another place Lord Drumalbyn said that the Government take the view that there is no time to be lost if the first runway is to he in operation in 1982. But the Bill does not say that Clause 2(9) is something which can be brushed aside, and that work to start reclaiming land to build the airport


and seaport can start right away. That is not said in the Bill, and that is not the wish of Parliament. Parliament will not be brushed aside in this way.
My amendment is intended to ensure that that does not happen. Parliament told that there will be consultations. We are told that this is a "substantial undertaking". I am not saying that Maplin should not go ahead. I am merely trying to ensure that the Government do not make the mistake of jumping the gun.
I appreciate the Government's desire to press on, but I do not want them to put the pressure on those whom they have to consult. I am trying to save them from the embarrassment of any criticism that, although they accepted the amendment which we passed when the Bill was going through the Commons, requiring them to consult, they do not appear to like that amendment and are trying to bypass it and avoid the true meaning of such consultation.
The Government may have to accept some criticism of their proposals, and even amend their intentions. For this they will need time. It is a serious decision for any Government to amend its intentions.
My amendment would give them time for that and remove any doubt that the Maplin decision has already been made.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the Secretary of State's intention to speak twice to this amendment? If that is not his intention, will he not listen to the debate before replying to it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Rippon: It is my wish that we should meet the convenience of the House in these matters. I envisage that I would say something now to indicate the Government's position generally, and then there will be an opportunity for another Minister to reply to the debate. I have moved formally that this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment No. 1, and we are taking that together with the amendment to that amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) for the purposes of debate. I think that it

would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the new subsection (9), which is Lords Amendment No. 4, which deals with the arrangements for the order referred to in the first amendment and with the report which is to precede the order. I suggest that we should deal also with the deletion of Clause 25, which is Lords Amendment No. 12, and at the same time we could have a discussion on the other amendments No. 3 and No. 4. to Lords Amendment No. 4, which deal with the matters which ought to be considered in the survey. We could have one general debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, whatever view you may take subsequently of how the House will deal with amendments by way of voting or otherwise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now dealing with Amendment No. 1. It will be in order to discuss those amendments which have been referred to, but they will be moved formally after this amendment has been disposed of.

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides that I try to resolve some of the doubts which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has expressed. The amendment which he has just moved is based on a misunderstanding of the position. I shall try to deal with that in due course, in the context of the way in which the Government are responding to the feelings of the House so clearly expressed in the discussions that we had on 13th June.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained in the debate at that time that the Government had no objection to the carrying out of a further study of the project, before we were committed to major expenditure—indeed, this was only common prudence. But we could not accept that the decision on this matter should be taken out of the hands of Ministers answerable to Parliament and entrusted to any body or bodies not so answerable. We accepted the feeling of the House and said that we were willing to meet the spirit of the discussion which had taken place. In the event, and in order, perhaps, to make the position quite clear, the House adopted a clause which proposed to give the Civil Aviation Authority control over the project.
I said on 13th June:
There are certain difficulties about it, which my hon. Friend explained. It may be that on reflection, when we consider these matters, the House will be a little concerned about transferring the responsibilities of Ministers answerable to this House to bodies which are not answerable to this House, but this is a matter to which we can give consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June 1973; Vol. 857, c. 1626.]
That we have done, and I hope that those who supported the new clause on Report will feel that the amendments now being proposed are reasonable, and will be accepted here as they were accepted by the Opposition in another place.
I hope that the deletion of Clause 25 is common ground. We should now be turning our attention to the amendments which should be made to meet the legitimate concern expressed on Report. I look now, therefore, at the amendments to the Bill which the Government brought forward in another place. There are three main points that I should like to make about them generally.
First, the amendment to Clause 2(1) provides that the Maplin Development Authority cannot begin to carry out reclamation work until a date which is appointed by order. The order is made subject—under the terms of subsection (9)—to parliamentary procedure. Without reclamation there can be no airport or seaport at Maplin, so the decision on the project as a whole remains absolutely with Parliament. Moreover, I can give an assurance that we shall not enter into any major construction contracts for other aspects of it which are not directly covered by this Bill—for instance, the access routes—until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering the order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, does he mean by affirmative or negative resolution? There is a tremendous difference between the two, because if he means negative resolution, circumstances can arise when praying time runs out—because of a General Election, swearing in and that sort of thing—before the House can intervene. Is he therefore definitely assuring the House that this will all be by affirmative and not negative resolution?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think it need necessarily be by affirmative resolution. The negative procedure applies. But I give a firm undertaking on behalf of the Government that time will be found for this matter. I will explain further what we intend to cover in the survey and how we intend to report to the House, but I envisage that when the report is made Parliament must be given adequate time to consider the report and to debate it. That is the essence of the understanding between us all on this matter.
What I am saying on behalf of the Government is that the Bill and planning should go forward and the machinery should be adopted. But before any major construction contracts are incurred, not only on matters covered by the Bill, but on matters which do not directly come within the Bill, or substantive decisions taken, Parliament will have the report, will have an opportunity to consider it and will have an opportunity, if it wishes, to debate it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned matters not directly related to the Bill. He has said that Parliament will have the opportunity of debating the report. Will Parliament have an opportunity to debate the new town that is envisaged?

Mr. Rippon: There are many matters to be discussed, including access routes. There is no question of the Government entering into major contracts on matters which we well understand should be the subject of a report that will give Parliament an opportunity to have a second look at the project. I hoped I had made that quite clear.

Mr. Spearing: Does it include the new town or not?

Mr. Rippon: It includes the access route to the new town. The position of the new town is somewhat different because, as we have always made clear, it was envisaged in the South-Eastern study which the previous Government set in hand that South Essex would be the growth area for the South-East of England and there would be a new town there in any event. That is a policy that would have to be put forward on its merits.
There is no question of establishing a new town without going through the various procedures required under the new towns legislation. So Parliament will have opportunities in different ways of expressing its views. We shall not set in hand the access routes that will serve, to some extent, both the new town and the Maplin project covered by the Bill until Parliament has had an opportunity to express a view. We shall not treat the access routes as being something simply for the new town and therefore outside the consideration of matters that arise from the Bill.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What puzzles me, then, is why it was necessary to conclude so speedily the consultations with the local authorities about access routes.

Mr. Rippon: There is always the question of blight if one suggests a number of possible routes. This again is not a different procedure just for Maplin, but something we have said we will do all over the country. We will end the secrecy about motorway routes. We would give a brief opportunity—not too long because of the blight difficulties—for people to express a view about the possible alternatives before we suggest a preferred route. The consultations which have taken place on the Maplin access routes are in addition to, and not a substitution for, all the other statutory procedures which are required by way of publication of preferred route, by way of public inquiry and so on, before a decision is taken.
I wanted to make it perfectly clear that we would not proceed under other legislation, or another procedure, to deal with matters which might be thought relevant to the Maplin project, such as the access routes. I do not think I can give firmer guarantees than I have that we are determined that the study which will form the basis of a report will be thorough. We shall approach it in an objective and open-minded way.
There is difficulty in putting into a Bill all the matters that one would consider in a study. That is my difficulty about the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and others which ask whether we will have regard to the position in the South-East, the effect on the environ-

ment and the effect of the Channel Tunnel. I should not want to see particular matters written in.
I give the firm assurance that we accept the substance of the two amendments in the right hon. Gentleman's name and the names of his hon. Friends, although we think it would be a mistake to write them into the Bill. We will include those matters in the report

Dr. Glyn: I am not clear about this. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend, quite rightly, wishes to give the House an opportunity to control the project. Will every factor have to be laid on the table by an affirmative order or will there be one further general debate on the whole issue? In any event, does this mean that there will be further delay in the Maplin project?

Mr. Rippon: This is the difficulty of setting out a list of all the factors to be considered. I said that we would cover in the report the two factors covered by the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. We intend to make it as wide-ranging as possible and I will try to indicate the sort of matters that it would cover. Parliament will have an opportunity to read it and then there must be a gap. There may be a general debate before the order or just one general debate on the order. The first thing to do is to get the report and give the assurance that Parliament will have time to read it and then, in the most convenient way, to debate it. It would be an order of great substance on whether to go ahead with the project.
I make it clear that the Government remain of the opinion that a new airport at Maplin is the right solution for the London airport problem. I do not want it thought that we have changed our view on the present evidence. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our reaching a pre-conceived solution, and I hope he will accept that as an assurance in view of the doubts that he has expressed outside the House.
In considering these amendments, the House will want some account of the matters which we envisage should be covered by the study. I will try to convey the scope of it and indicate how we try to deal with the various issues.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Before my right hon. and learned Friend continues, I wonder whether he would clear up a point about the further two-year delay on the project from 1980 to 1982. Will he make it plain whether this means that everything will slide back two years, every date on the critical point analysis of the project will be moved on two years, or will we start three months late and finish two years late? Is the project impossible of achievement by 1980? Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that it ought to be achieved by 1982?

Mr. Rippon: There is no question of a deliberate delay. It is easier if one deals with these two matters in logical progression and does not shift from what is to be in the study and how to deal with that to the points that I will make in answer to my hon. Friend's amendment. Roskill spoke of about 1980; I have spoken in the debates about the early 1980s. It now appears clear, as I said in the speech I made on 12th September, that the earliest practical date is the spring of 1982.
In that speech I endeavoured to explain how, taking 1982 as the planning date for the opening of the Maplin airport, the burden on national resources, both in finance and manpower, was likely to be spread in the next decade over these two projects. By the end of the decade, the total expenditure on the two projects might be about £150 million a year, or 0·3 per cent. of our gross domestic product, but it would not pre-empt much construction manpower. On the reclamation of land at Maplin, the expenditure would be nil in the current year, perhaps about £14 million in the next year and £17 million in the year thereafter.
We should put into perspective some of the rather exaggerated estimates of cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury talked once again of £1,000 million, but that is not a realistic figure. On Second Reading we gave figures explaining how there would be a build-up to about £440 million by 1980 and £825 million by 1990. Those figures did not take account of the new town, or access roads, because they were likely to happen in any event.
A great many people think that £1,000 million could be saved here and now and

be available for distribution to the public, but that is not so if we look at the way in which the money will be spent.
One of the things which the study will bring out, and something we must face up to, is that this is not expenditure to be incurred at Maplin only; it will be incurred somewhere. That would apply whether one was talking about the airport or the provision of houses in the new town. If they are not provided at Maplin one would have to expand many more of the existing new towns than many people would think right or reasonable—for instance, Bracknell, Harlow or Stevenage. It is absurd to say that a saving can be made and that therefore one can forget about the problem for ever.

Mr. Adley: On that one point I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend if we are talking solely about the cost of airports. Can he, however, confirm that the cost of a second runway at Gatwick would be £8 million?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think I can confirm that figure. I should have said that the figures I gave covered the access routes, including rail, though not the new town itself. To expand Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted, or Luton is not just a question of additional runways but the additional facilities which would be required to carry many more passengers. It is not a simple question of saying, "We can save £1,000 million which will be available for distribution in some other way." That is not so. First, the expenditure to be spread over a number of years is very little in the first two or three years. Moreover, a great deal of it, if not spent at Maplin, would be spent elsewhere.
It would be reasonable for the House to say that the survey we make should not deal simply with costs of Maplin and the arguments for and against it, but should bring in what is on the other side of the balance sheet and what we would have to do with regard to other facilities. It might be helpful if I went back and tried to explain what it is we intend to cover in the survey. Then if I have left anything out hon. Members may wish to ask me for a further undertaking not to forget this, that or the other.
Our study will be concerned with all the facts as far as we can judge them


affecting the need for the project. That will cover the seaport as well as the airport. I hope that those who are primarily concerned with the seaport will forgive me if I devote most of my time to the question of the airport because I believe that to be of the most immediate interest.
The study will deal with the seaport in parallel with any formal consideration of the Port of London Authority's proposals under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. I have already told the Port of London Authority, after consulting the National Ports Council, that I have no objection in principle to its proposal, but nevertheless there has to be further detailed consideration by everybody, including the National Ports Council, about any proposals that might be put forward. I think also that the House would wish to be kept informed of the progress of that side.
Our first task in the study will be to review forecasts of air traffic demand up to 1990. We shall draw heavily on the work carried out first by the Roskill Commission, and more recently by the Civil Aviation Authority
5.45 p.m.
At this point I should like to correct a misunderstanding held by many people, including the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), since the CAA's Report. It has been suggested that the Civil Aviation Authority's forecasts of demand are much lower than Roskill. That was the point raised by the right hon. Member for Grimsby on 13th June.
It is clear, if one studies the report carefully, that the CAA's forecast of demand for air transport movements in 1985 is only 4 per cent. lower than Roskill's figure. So there is, to date, fairly broad agreement on the scale of demand up to 1985; but we shall look again at the figures and take account of any fresh evidence that may be brought forward.
In our further work on demand we shall also take account of the various factors that have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House: greater use of regional airports, involving an acceleration of a trend which is already evident, the diversion of traffic to the Channel Tunnel—a factor which was allowed for in the CAA's forecasts, but we shall bring that up to date—supply and price of aviation fuel, and

developments in aviation technology generally, including the introduction of larger aircraft.
When we have refined, as best we can, the forecasts of demand on the London airport system, we shall compare them with forecasts of the capacity of the existing airports which serve London. It was, of course, in the matter of capacity that the CAA report produced a somewhat different picture from that of Rosskill, principally because it assumed a much greater spreading of the peak at Gatwick.
Here, our first consideration will be of runway capacity, but we shall need to look also in much greater detail than the CAA report could at the constraints which are imposed by the capacity of ground handling facilities. This is a factor which I am sure is far too readily ignored by many people. Where major improvements to ground handling facilities would be needed in order to make use of runway capacities, the cost and the implications of doing this would form part of the second stage of the study, to which I now turn.
When we have established the facts about demand and capacity, we shall select for detailed study a number of different ways in which any extra capacity which might be needed could be provided, either with or without an airport at Maplin.
The British Airports Authority has given recently its views on the implications for the London airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—if Maplin were abandoned. I shall not go into detail, but it has said some things to which the House really must pay attention—and especially some of the more vigorous critics of the Maplin project. The British Airports Authority said:
If the Maplin project were abandoned we should have to face a completely different problem—how to expand Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to meet the air transport growth which seems likely to engulf the south-east in the 80s. Airport planning has a 10–15 year 'horizon' and we should have to change our plans immediately.
Regarding Heathrow, it says:
Passengers could double from today's 20 million a year to about 40 million in the mid-80s. … Air transport movements could increase by about 25 per cent. …".
In other words, one assumes larger aircraft and fewer movements, but one still


has the problem of the passengers. One would have to acquire further land immediately for extra terminal space, including the removal of a large sewage works. We shall have to consider where we should put that.
The BAA continues:
The M4 motorway and the Piccadilly underground line would have to be supplemented by a surface rail link with Central London.
We shall have to consider the environmental effects and the cost of that. It continues:
Passengers could increase five times"—
at Gatwick—
from today's 5 million to around 25 million in the mid-80s and thence perhaps to 35 million by the end of the decade.
Further land and terminal facilities would be required there.
With regard to Stansted, it says:
Passengers could probably increase from today's 300,000 to about 8 million in the mid-80s. … About 1,500 acres of extra land would be needed and probably a further 1,000 if Stansted were to become a major two-runway airport for 1990s.
This, it says, is taking account of the fact that regional airports should expand and take off as much traffic as possible. But when about 80 per cent. of the increased demand is from passengers who want to come in to the South-East of England or leave the South-East, that is a factor we must bear in mind. It must not be imagined anywhere that there is some enormous saving to be made in cost or environmental considerations if we do not have Maplin. If we do not have Maplin, we shall have to face up to the alternative.
I shall not prejudge what the study may say, because the House is entitled to ask for a survey which brings those factors more accurately into focus and gives other people an opportunity to comment on the British Airways Authority's report if they so wish.

Mr. James Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to add the figures for Luton, which must be taken into account, where the charter traffic is the fastest expanding element in civil aviation? That will have a serious effect.

Mr. Rippon: Yes, we shall do that, because the Government's policy of developing Maplin assumes restriction of the use of existing airports and, one hopes, some easing of their present situation. I was trying to illustrate the sort of problems which we have to face in any survey and the sort of problems which the House will have to face when it considers that report.

Mr. Crouch: The House is interested in the report from the British Airports Authority, and the extract which my right hon. and learned Friend has read, but surely it is a fact that the authority is being frustrated by the whole idea of Maplin, which has put a blight on its planning intentions to develop regional airports and also Heathrow and Gatwick. That is the real complaint.

Mr. Rippon: The British Airports Authority's problem is different from that of the commercial interests which do not like to be upset and made to move. Its main problem is providing facilities, and it is concerned that we should press ahead as fast as possible. Meanwhile, in the interim, the British Airports Authority is envisaging expenditure of £100 million on existing airports. That is the sort of figure that one talks about even in a holding operation.
In assessing all our alternative strategies the report will look at other factors. It will deal not only with public expenditure generally, but also with the effect of noise and the local implications, and, in particular, with the effect on the environment.
Many people give the greatest weight to the question of noise impact, and we shall try to define the problem in sufficient detail to enable the Civil Aviation Authority to draw up noise contours for each airport as it would be used in each alternative strategy.
Many people base their opposition to Maplin on the hope that by the time it is completed there will be quieter aircraft. That is not a matter for me to go into in detail—

Mr. Adley: Why not?

Mr. Rippon: —because in winding up the debate my hon. Friend may be able to explain the progress that is being made on the aviation side, and he can speak with greater knowledge about the effect of the new developments in


aero-engines. It should also be borne in mind that some of the new aeroplanes being approved are smaller—such as the HS146—rather than larger, and all those factors will be taken into account.
The study will review this whole question of noise and try to give an unbiased account of the facts about aircraft noise. We all recognise that progress has been made in this sphere, and there is a substantial body of opinion which believes that there are dramatic possibilities of reduction in aircraft noise. The Government will play their full part in all this, and—I should like to emphasise this—in encouraging the process.
It is untrue, as some have suggested, that the Government are not willing to see this progress because it undermines the case for Maplin. Over many years, successive Governments have supported the aviation industry in trying to produce not only more powerful but quieter engines, and that process will continue.
All I emphasise again is that even if all the aircraft noise could be contained within the perimeter of our airports—we are a long way from that at present—we would still have to face the passenger handling problem and the provision of various facilities.
I hope that I have indicated sufficiently that the survey really will be wide-ranging and that it will cover the problems raised on both sides of the House. It will cover the matters raised in the amendments suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby. It will not only take into account alternative strategies in the South-East but will bring into the picture what should be done as regards regional policy and regional airports. That is made clear in the final words of the new subsection (9).

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Waltham-stow, East): Can my right hon. and learned Friend give some idea of when the report is due to be published? I understand that the hydraulic model test will be finished about March 1974. The report sounds to be so comprehensive that it is difficult to imagine its being published on or about the same date and it would suggest that the reclamation that would have happened immediately after the hydraulic tests will not now be able to go on because presumably the report will be waiting to be digested.

Mr. Rippon: A great deal of work has been done and the preparation of information is a continuous process. I think it would be a mistake to give a fixed date for the publication of the report, because it is important that when it comes forward it is a document of the sort of substance that the House will accept as representing evidence on which it can act. I hope that it will be available some time in the spring of next year or shortly afterwards.
Subsection (9) requires our study to be carried out in consultation with appropriate bodies and then our report to Parliament is a report of our consultations and conclusions. Work relevant to the report is already in hand and is being carried out in close collaboration with the main agencies involved with the first stage of the study—that is, the assessment of demand and capacity. Further consultations as required by the Bill will take place with these agencies and other appropriate bodies, including the British Airways Board, and when we reach the stage of formal consultations we shall talk to local authorities about aspects of the alternative strategies of interest to them. It is a mistake to think that local authorities are not being closely involved in the day-to-day work going on, and I have frequently paid tribute to what has been done, particularly by the Kent and Essex County Councils and others.

Mr. Jessel: When my right hon. and learned Friend carries out those consultations at that stage, will he consult those local authorities whose areas are close to the four existing airports around London and which would be adversely affected if Maplin were not built?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, certainly they will be consulted and I am sure they will wish to know what is happening and what is being said. Quite apart from any statutory bodies or agencies and the local authorities, I ought to make it clear that it is open to anybody who wishes to express views to let us have his comments at any time; and they will be taken into account in the study.
I think I need to emphasise that, although we wish to meet, I hope in a fair and reasonable way, the wishes of the House, there is a need to press on with


the Maplin planning. Just because we are carrying out this study does not mean that we can afford at this stage to relax in any way our planning effort for the Maplin project. I think I made clear that the speech I made on 12th September in no way represented a weakening of the Government's view that Maplin will prove to be needed. I set out a statement of fact based on an opening date in 1982.

Mr. Grylls: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the question of the date earlier. Is he aware that many of my constituents and those in constituencies near London have been disappointed to see that the date has apparently slipped because they suffer from so much noise? Is it possible for him to try for the earlier date they were hoping for?

Mr. Rippon: We started off with the Roskill Report which said about 1980, and have always talked of the early 1980s. We have now done the necessary planning exercise on the realistic basis of an opening in 1982. That causes anxiety to many people. It may be that, as matters develop, there will be pressure on the House for the programme to be speeded up, but I think we must accept that as a realistic date for the present. We shall go ahead with the study as fast as we can, without in any way trying to rush it or put it forward in a way that would be unacceptable or be thought to be inadequate.
There is an urgent need, and the fact that plans are having to be made to expand existing facilities, albeit simply to meet a holding situation, shows how serious this need is. That is why I ask the House not to accept the amendment which has been moved—albeit with great eloquence—by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who took up a number of arguments which were raised in another place and suggested that it would be very helpful to all concerned if we decided not to do anything, whatever happened, until two years after the passing of the Act. That would prejudge any view that Parliament might take on the report and the effect of the amendment would be that, when making the order, the Secretary of State could not appoint a date for reclamation to start earlier than the end of October 1975, though the

order might be made at any time. I think that would be a great mistake.
As my hon. Friend made clear, the amendment is obviously based on a misunderstanding. He has clearly misunderstood the purpose of the speech I made on 12th September and assumed that it was a deliberate deferment of the project. That was a mistake.
The amendment is unnecessary because the Lords Amendment No. 1 puts absolute control over the project and its timing in the hands of Parliament. It is wrong to put an artificial and arbitrary time constraint upon the project without any regard to the future situation or the findings of the study. The amendment is inflexible and one must bear in mind that it is so inflexible that it would, in fact, make impossible the opening of Maplin in 1982.
If the House decides that Maplin is necessary, it will decide that it is necessary that it should be opened as quickly as possible and not as slowly as possible. The amendment would delay the opening date for the seaport as well as the airport, without any rational consideration of the issues. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that no useful purpose could be served by taking a view on the earliest date on which the order should be operative before the facts are put before it.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Secretary of State says that no useful purpose will be served, but surely the contrary is the case. In the two years suggested there will have been a General Election and the fate of Maplin determined. If the Labour Party is returned to power, one of its priorities—unfortunately, this is not clearly understood throughout the country—will be to kill Maplin within days of the election. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but, in view of any contracts which may be placed, it is important that it should be understood that the Labour Party is serious in saying that, within days of its election, it will kill Maplin. It is therefore necessary to have a period during which consultation with the electorate can take place. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct in saying that there is no purpose in this discussion.

Mr. Rippon: I am trying to do the Labour Party a certain amount of justice. I am assuming that it is serious and wants an objective study of the pros and cons.

Mr. Atkinson: The decision has already been taken.

Mr. Rippon: No. The hon. Gentleman may already have taken the decision, but I am sure that his right hon. and hon. Friends will be a little more prudent in the attitude that they adopt. We had better wait for the Opposition's election manifesto. Assuming that they are determined to kill the project in any event and that the report will not come until after the election, they can take that view at any time. There is nothing to preclude them from doing so.
The Government suggest that Maplin is the right solution, but that, in deference to the wishes of the House, and in view of the great expenditure involved, it is not unreasonable to go ahead with the planning as fast as possible and, before any major expenditure is incurred, to come back to Parliament with a report. Parliament can then take any view that it likes. However, it is absurd to take the view that if it thought Maplin was right it should have bound its hands not to do anything about it until a later date. If the House comes to the conclusion that the survey, when concluded, demonstrates that we should proceed with the Maplin project, it will wish and need to do it as quickly as possible. Therefore, the amendment is misconceived.

Mr. Atkinson: The decision taken by the Labour Party is not dependent upon the kind of report to be published by the Government. The Labour Party has overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that, for other considerations, Maplin is just not on. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) to clarify the position, I feel sure that he will tell him that a future Labour Government will kill Maplin within days of election.

Mr. Rippon: The Opposition must settle these matters for themselves. The Government wish the House to take a rational position, which is to see the evidence, to weigh it, and then to make

a judgment in the national interest. I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members are prepared to do that.
There is not much dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and myself. We all know that there ought to be another look at this proposal on the best available evidence before there is a firm commitment to heavy expenditure. We must realise that to rule out Maplin at this stage or by 1982 would involve prejudging the situation in what I should regard as a totally irrational way, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I should like to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, quite distinct from some other parties, the Labour Party learns very rapidly.

Mr. Rippon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on an enormous number of matters. I, too, put more faith in the Opposition than some of their own supporters. I do not believe that they will want to commit themselves to a totally irrational course of conduct. The out and out rejection of the Maplin option means an immediate commitment to all the other expenditure and environmental disadvantages without any weighing of the consequences. I do not believe that that is the wish of the House as a whole.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, particularly in the light of that kind of comment, will agree that in the amendments the Government have brought forward we are determined to meet the wishes of the House to have a genuine wide-ranging survey and not to exclude any relevant matters. I hope, therefore, that in due course the House will agree with the Lords amendment and that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I accept the content of the Opposition's amendments, but again I hope that they will not press for them to be included in the Bill, because it would look strange if we identified one or two factors, but not all others.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I shall try to make my speech rather shorter than the two speeches that we have heard so far. Otherwise the debate will never be concluded.
I thought that there was no doubt about the policy of the Labour Party. I


will make it clear in case there is any doubt. The Labour Party is as of now unalterably opposed to the Maplin project—[Laughter.] What is funny about that?—and will not proceed with it.
We believe that the accumulation of evidence, which has now lasted two to three years, is sufficient to enable the House and the parties to come to a definite conclusion. The Labour Party has come to a definite conclusion.
Having said that, and knowing that the Government take a contrary view, obviously I welcome some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State this afternoon. At least the tone of ministerial speeches is a good deal gentler and less dogmatic than a year ago.
I welcome Lords Amendment No. 4, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about it this afternoon, and what Lord Drumalbyn said in the House of Lords on 18th June. But I also support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), as the Opposition want to give the Government adequate time to carry out the review and produce the report that the Secretary of State has described in some detail. Although we are grateful for the promise of a review we still support the notion that there should be a two years' delay so that at least the supporters of Maplin can reconsider the matter.
Lords Amendment No. 4, when it speaks of a report, states that the Secretary of State
shall lay a report of the consultations and of his conclusions before Parliament".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's conclusions will no doubt be reported in his own language. Well and good. However, when it comes to reporting the consultations, I hope that the views and advice tendered by these distinguished outside bodies will be printed and published in their own original words and will not be rewritten, doctored, bowdlerised or otherwise censored by ministers before being printed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be "no rigging". I welcome that. I hope it means that we shall have the actual written views of, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That would be a useful distinction compared with quoting out of context a paragraph in a

letter from the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and not even laying it on the table.

Mr. Crosland: It was my inquiry that produced the publication of that letter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I feel strongly with him on that point.
I take it that it is not really relevant for us to go over all the arguments that we have used in previous debates and that all that is relevant today is to point to some of the changes which have occurred since we last debated this matter in mid-June—changes which, in the view of many of us, greatly strengthen the argument for a two-years' postponement and a thorough inquiry.
I should like to mention briefly five new pieces of evidence that have come to light.
The first concerns noise, on which the Government's argument now entirely rests. Surely it cannot be maintained, in the light of the CAA figures, that there will be a shortage of runway capacity in the South-East by the mid-1980s or—despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said this afternoon—that there need necessarily be a shortage of terminal and ground handling capacity.
Therefore, as Ministers have made clearly evident, the critical case for going ahead with Maplin is noise. This is why the whole project has been presented so often in environmental terms. I have always accepted that the Government were right to give the first priority to the question of noise. Living, as so many hon. Members do, quite near to Heathrow, I regard noise around Heathrow—and Luton—as having reached intolerable levels. That is why, speaking for the Labour Party, I have said that our alternative to Maplin does not rest on a second runway at Gatwick or on a continuing expansion of traffic at Luton or Stansted.
I must refer to the report of the British Airports Authority, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted this afternoon. I shall speak rather carefully about it, but I can certainly say that, following the publication of this report, had not the Secretary of State, shortly after that, announced a two-year slippage from 1980 to 1982 he could be certain to have had more than one resignation from the BAA as a result


of a report which many experts think to be grossly misleading and greatly to understate the possible diversion of traffic from the London area to the regions.
I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman about one or two pieces of evidence which have come to light regarding noise and to ensure that they will be considered in the context of the report that he has described to the House.
6.15 p.m.
First, we read in this week's Observer that calculations done by Professor John Large of the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at Southampton have produced some extremely important new knowledge on the question of noise. His study sets out in detail the kind of improvement that could be made if the Government set' about these tasks with great determination. I hope that the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, if he is to make the concluding speech, will tell us whether the Government have received this report, and what comments they have upon it. Even more relevant, since this is a Government-sponsored piece of research, was the news in the Sunday Times of 22nd July that new forecasts have come from the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock. I quote the Sunday Times story and ask for a comment upon it.
The conclusions were apparently circulated to Government Ministers nearly four months ago"—
that is, four months before 22nd July.
They came at an embarrassing time … Ministers therefore decided not to publish the Pyestock forecasts.
I hope that we shall have an absolutely clear answer this afternoon as to whether the Government have received this report, and whether they have taken a deliberate decision not to publish it, because, as the hon. Member implied, we have already had considerable difficulty over accurate publication and we do not want to have any more. Certainly, if this report has deliberately remained unpublished and hushed up it would be a disgraceful situation. We are really in danger of reaching a situation in which reports which do not support Maplin are treated practically like the Watergate papers; they are a matter of such desperate secrecy. But if

our discussions are to be adequate, we must have access to every piece of expert information that is available to us.
On the question of noise, I must repeat that I, like many others, think that the Government's priorities are hopelessly wrong. There was a very informative exchange at Question Time yesterday, which a number of hon. Members will have heard, which brought out the amount of money being spent on research into the development of quieter engines.

Mr. Adley: It did not bring it out.

Mr. Crosland: I accept that it did not accurately bring it out, but it made it clear that these sums were infinitesimal compared to the cost of Maplin, and that shows an utterly false sense of priorities.
The second point is the question of regional airports and the enormous upsurge of interest in regional airports in the last few months, accompanied by a quite legitimate demand that, if we can have a two-year delay, then, for heaven's sake, let us use that two years' delay to get something approaching a national and not simply a regional airport strategy. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman hinted, the figures show that already a steady diversion to regional airports is occurring. For some time, the Civil Aviation Authority has been conducting its survey in depth of regional needs and regional airport capacity. I was delighted to see that the CAA recently put the boot into BEA and withdrew from it the Birmingham-Brussels licence and gave it to British Midland Airways, on the grounds that BEA had been inadequately supporting regional services.
Since we last debated this matter, we have had the extremely important and authoritative announcement of airways policy by Mr. David Nicholson, the new Chairman of British Airways. He made it clear that he regarded the encouragement of regional airports in accordance with a national plan as one way of avoiding an early commitment to a third London airport at Maplin Sands. He went on:
As air transport developed, passengers would begin to fly from, say, Manchester to Marseilles, from Birmingham to Brussels
and he concluded by saying
With reasonable expenditure at Heathrow, London's present airport system could cope until the late 1980s.


—again, due to a stronger and stronger insistence on diversion to regional airports.
Finally, still on this subject, we have had—and this has already been alluded to—the very authoritative report of the Chambers of Commerce, and I quote one sentence from it:
… reclamation of the Maplin sands does not in our opinion deserve to be the highest priority at present in Britain's development of air transport. A decade hence there may emerge new reasons for going ahead with it: but we doubt whether the reasons on which the Maplin recommendation was based now justify the expense.
That is a formidable list of important pieces of new evidence. On the question of regional airports, the whole climate of opinion has markedly altered in the last six or nine months, and the Government certainly have no right to dream of going ahead with presenting the order to Parliament, at least before we have the Civil Aviation Authority's report on regional airports.
The third factor which has altered since mid-June is that a number of regional planning arguments now look significantly different. The new city in South-East Essex—I wanted to say this to the two Members for Southend, but they have disappeared for a moment—will be very much larger than most hon. Members thought when we discussed this matter a year ago, as we know now that we have seen the detailed plans. The access routes have now been published but they have not been adequately discussed. Certainly, they have not been properly discussed in the House since they had not been published when we last debated the matter in mid-June. There is a growing fear, to put it mildly, which is not confined to this side of the House, about the extent to which major investment projects are concentrating in the South-East. We have to remember that along with the airport there will be a great deal of indirect industrial investment, and this is investment which could go either in South-East Essex or in other parts of the country with very much higher unemployment.
The fourth factor which has changed—and, with respect, I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has quite grasped this point—concerns the Channel Tunnel forecasts of future cross-Channel

traffic. When we last discussed this matter on 16th June, I do not think the Cooper Lybrand cost-benefit transport study had been published—if it was, it was literally within 24 hours of our debate on Maplin and none of us had had time to read it—but now that we have read it we find that the forecasts of air traffic are significantly lower than the Roskill forecasts, or than any forecasts which the Government had been using. The reason was that all previous forecasts had simply extrapolated from the trend of the 1960s when there was a vast once-for-all increase in charter traffic, which nobody now believes will be repeated. So we now have forecasts of the need for aircraft capacity and for air journeys across the Channel which have changed markedly since the middle of June.
The fifth point to which I want to refer, although the right hon. Gentleman said little about it, is the deepening mystery of the seaport.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to say anything about another point which has emerged more recently; that is, the sharply increasing price of aviation fuel which will change the cost relationship between the high-speed train and the aircraft, particularly on the routes to Europe. Surely that will make even the estimate about the cross-Channel traffic, to which he referred, look out of date.

Mr. Crosland: What the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely right, and that will probably have the effect of altering the estimates still further in such a way as to cast doubt on the need for Maplin.
We have an extraordinary situation in the deepening mystery of the seaport. Once again, last Wednesday, the Minister for Transport Industries told the House that there were still no detailed proposals from the Port of London Authority. There is still no advice of any kind from the National Ports Council. It now appears from what I think is irrefutable evidence that the oil companies, at any rate, have no desire whatsoever for an oil terminal at Maplin. I have here the conclusion of the report of what is called the Economic Appraisal Working Group on the Maplin Oil Terminal Project. This working group consisted of representatives of ENI, Shell, Occidental, Total,


Mobil, Burmah and BP, with two representatives of the PLA and under PLA chairmanship. So this was not simply a get-together by the oil companies alone. The conclusion of this report, which is dated 30th July, is as follows:
based on the data available to the Economic Appraisal Working Group we conclude that there is no economic case at this time for the construction of an oil terminal at the proposed Maplin seaport for the receipt of crude oil and its trans-shipment by pipeline to oil refineries in and around the Thames Estuary. Furthermore the Working Group were unable to find any means by which the economics of the project could be sufficiently improved to make the project immediately viable.
I repeat the central phrase:
… there is no economic case at this time for the construction of an oil terminal at the proposed Maplin seaport.
That is the oil part of the traffic. What about the other part of the traffic—container, general cargo and the rest of it? We have been given no arguments for the Maplin seaport. We have never been told how this fits into regional policy, what effect it will have on prospective port development on Clydeside, Humberside, Merseyside and Severnside, what justification there is for putting new port investment of this size into the South-East as opposed to other parts of the country, and whether the suggestion of a huge new port like Maplin makes any sense in terms of regional policy.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that since the date of that submission the new finds in the North Sea have, if anything, lessened the desire of the oil companies to have this type of terminal at Maplin?

Mr. Crosland: I would imagine that is true. That is a very important factor.
This report was published on 30th July, and so it must have been considered before. I repeat my question: why cannot this report be made available to the House? The PLA is a public body. Perhaps the Minister will consider this when he replies to the debate.
Apart from regional policy, we have never had any discussion of the environmental effects which the port will have in terms of extra traffic congestion, for instance, and we have never had any suggestion of anything which could possibly

be called a national ports policy. After all, a lot of ports exist in Britain and much investment has been spent on them in recent years—on the East Coast from Grangemouth to Harwich; on the South Coast, Dover and Southampton; and in the West, Bristol, Liverpool and Greenock. In the light of the number of ports that we have and the kind of investment spent on them, do we need this vast new concentration on Maplin?
Many questions have arisen, even since mid-June, which the report must consider. New evidence on subjects such as noise is coming forward. The case for Maplin is now even weaker than it was in June. I suggest that two years is an absolute minimum in which to give the Government a chance to consider the matter.

Mr. Jessel: The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), like other opponents of Maplin, laid emphasis upon hopes that aircraft will become quieter in the future. He laid great stress on it. It was the first of his five points, and I think he went into this in greater length than he did in any of his other points.
I hope that no one without recent experience of living close to Heathrow or Gatwick or Luton will be complacent or over-optimistic on this point, because tremendous suffering is caused by aircraft noise and it would be wrong to assume that it will become much less without any substantial and convincing proof. My constituency in Twickenham is very close to Heathrow, and I find that what people complain most about is not so much the individual loudness or peak loudness of each aeroplane as the ever-increasing number of flights. This increase is remorseless year after year, and now at Heathrow there are about 600 aircraft movements a day. If there is no Maplin by 1985, I am told, there will be 1,000 movements a day at Heathrow. Already there are periods when aircraft go over every minute, or minute and a half, or minute and three quarters. If there is no Maplin, this sound will become almost continuous.
All the technical arguments to the effect that this noise will diminish rest on the assumption that this increase in frequency matters less than a decline in loudness of each flight. I believe that that assumption is false, and I hope that a fresh look will be taken at it. It would be quite wrong


to assume that people living close to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton will find their position more pleasant if the number of aircraft is substantially increased but if each aircraft is rather quieter than before. In any case, I remain to be convinced that the aircraft will become substantially quieter in the relevant time scale.
Of the 62 airlines which use Heathrow, a considerable number have been placing orders, yet to be delivered, of very noisy aircraft, such as the Boeing 707.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West) rose—

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Jessel: I do not say that all of the 62 airlines are doing so, but some of them are placing orders for some very noisy aircraft which are among the noisiest today. I would add that the life of such aircraft is about 20 years.
As to quietening of the existing aircraft by the so-called hush-kits, I remain to be convinced that they will get so much quieter that they will no longer be a nuisance, especially if the frequency increases.
In addition, we should remember that aircraft noise is not only engine noise. There is the noise from aerodynamic causes as the aircraft passes through the air. This makes an unpleasant whining noise which will not be removed by quieter engines. Therefore, the facile assumption, that aircraft will get so much quieter within the next decade or two that the noise will not matter, is false.
Apart from noise, there is the safety aspect. Sooner or later by the laws of chance an aircraft is going to crash around Heathrow. One did so only a year or two ago. By sheer good fortune it crashed on open space. If on that day the prevailing wind had been in the opposite direction so that the aircraft was taking off into the opposite direction, it would have fallen on a heavily built-up area. I ask the House to consider the possibility of 100 tons of metal, fuel, passengers and luggage crashing into a densely built-up area at around 200 miles an hour. This is an unacceptable level of risk at Heathrow with 1,000 flights a day, and it must be right to arrange for an ever-increasing proportion of aircraft in the

future to take off and land over the sea instead of over residential areas.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The most interesting words in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) were "as of now". He said that the Labour Party's policy was "as of now unalterably opposed" to Maplin. I noticed an interesting conjunction of words. I hope that we may place greater weight on "as of now" than on "unalterably."
If I were asked to identify the main feature of the movement of public opinion since I have been in the House, I would say that there has been a movement against the blinding heat of the technological revolution and toward the necessity for environmental considerations. This has been the general trend of public opinion. I admit that if aircraft are required to land farther away from the capital city there are certain economic difficulties, and it would be wrong for those of us who favour Maplin to be blind to this. In trying to identify the nature of the change in public opinion I have found that in recent years the public are becoming increasingly conscious about the environment and are increasingly ready to pay the cost of environmental improvement. The public want to be able to live a reasonable sort of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) says that the Labour Party is passionate about Maplin, but I do not believe that the party is at all passionate about it.

Mr. Atkinson: I did not say that the Labour Party was passionate about Maplin. I said that it was quite deliberate in its intention to kill Maplin within days of being elected.

Mr. Jenkins: That seems to be a rather passionate intention—to kill Maplin within days of being elected. I did not hear any such passion expressed on this subject at the recent Labour Party conference. It seems to have been a phrase which has been tossed out at a small meeting and it did not have the tremendous weight which my hon. Friend places on the subject. It is not a central issue of Labour Party doctrine. It is a question of what is the right thing to do. It is not a party or a doctrinaire or ideological question. It is a question of whether public money is properly spent on this project.
To identify the real nature of the problem we must look at the matter of the noise level. The highest noise level is 45 NNI—noise and number index—which is very loud. More often the noise level over Putney is 30 NNI, and only occasionally it is 45. It is loud noise. The number of people disturbed at the 45 NNI level at Heathrow alone in 1981–82 would be 200,000 compared with 200 people so disturbed at Maplin. Therefore, on environmental considerations, it is not a question of a slight difference. It involves hundreds of thousands of people, and this supports the argument for the construction of Maplin. People have been enduring this noise increasingly over the years and are greatly in need of relief from it.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say, as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already told me, that the delay from 1980 to 1982 in the estimated date for the opening of Maplin is a delay of necessity, not of intent. I received a letter on this point from the Under-Secretary, part of which states:
we have carried forward preparations to the point where we call estimate more clearly the timing of the various elements of the project. This work indicates that the Maplin airport cannot be operational before 1982.
I regard this as a statement of an inevitable consequence rather than a statement of desire, and I hope that this is still the case. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State say that it is.
I do not wish to be opposed to my party in this matter. It has been said that I am acting purely from a constituency consideration. There is nothing wrong in that, even if it were the case. If one is alive to constituency considerations and makes a study of the facts one becomes increasingly assured that a serious mistake would be made in opposing the development of Maplin. National considerations then become associated with constituency considerations. I am unusually sure that I cannot be mistaken about this.
I offered an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1, which is the amendment on which this debate is primarily hung. You considered, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment which I proposed was unacceptable. My amendment provided that instead of the words being:

not being less than two years after the date of the passing of this Act.
they should be:
not being more than two years after the date of the passing of this Act.
One reason why it was felt that my amendment was not acceptable was that it is a contrary argument to that contained in the amendment, but I believe it would be much better if we had an amendment such as mine rather than the one on the Notice Paper, which I cannot support.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to the matter of danger. I do not wish to exaggerate this point, and I agree that Heathrow Airport has operated successfully. Aircraft have flown into and out of Heathrow, as well as Gatwick, for many years without doing harm to anyone on the ground. But it is in the nature of events that 98 per cent. of serious jet accidents occur within 10 miles of the busy ends of terminal runways.
There was an air accident last year in France. Had this accident been transferred to this country it would have occurred over Putney. It resulted in some damage in France, and some people who were on the ground were killed, but had it occurred in this country the damage and the deaths would have been appalling and unthinkable. It is, therefore, sensible and reasonable to remove this considerable risk from our capital.
I am sure all hon. Members would agree that if we were now constructing an airport to serve London no one in his right mind would dream of putting the airport at Heathrow. From the point of view of landing and taking off, Heathrow is the worst airport in the world because more people who live in the area are overflown by aircraft than in the area of any other airport in the world. This is one of the reasons why I believe that Maplin must go ahead.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby referred to considerations which have arisen since we last discussed this matter. But he omitted one point which is not unimportant. I refer to the recommendation of the Noise Advisory Council. The council told the Government that a third major airport for London was needed as soon as possible. After studying the reports from its various working parties on noise, the council stated that noise disturbance at


Heathrow was now severe. It said that relief at Heathrow was needed as soon as possible, and that the most effective way of achieving this was likely to be a decrease in the number of aircraft movements. It believed that the only certain way to ensure such a decrease was the provision of a third London airport.
The council also referred to the matter touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Twickenham. It emphasised that the economic life of existing noisy aircraft is still comparatively long and that retrofit arrangements for reducing noise are not likely to make a very significant impact so far as can be realistically foreseen. It considers that optimism about the rate of improvement may have been over-stated by some of the proponents of these techniques. That is putting it mildly.
I believe that expenditure on Concorde has been a great mistake and I think that now, with a little bit of hindsight, the Concorde project would not have been started. That was the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). Although I believe that expenditure on Concorde is a mistake I do not believe that this expenditure on Maplin would be a mistake, and I hope the Government will press ahead as fast as possible.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: Noise forecasts of the type that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has just made are technical matters and it is difficult to argue about them. Nevertheless, a great many forecasts have been made and it is most important to study them carefully.
As one who has always opposed Maplin, nevertheless I have great sympathy for those people who live round Heathrow. I did so myself for many years, and I understand their feelings. However, forecasts of noise reductions cannot be dismissed glibly as over-optimistic. For example, the figures put forward recently by Mr. Flowerdew hear examination. He said that in 1972 2,200,000 people around Heathrow were subject to the 35 NNI line and that, without Maplin, using Department of the Environment formulae, it could be down to 450,000 people by 1985. That is with-

out Maplin. He was saying that the introduction of new wide-bodied, quieter aircraft would reduce enormously the number of people suffering from severe noise nuisance in the Heathrow area. Earlier, the hon. Member for Putney quoted a low figure for the number of people who would suffer from noise nuisance if we built an airport at Maplin. That figure was arrived at only by the use of the same formulae as those on which Mr. Flowerdew based his forecasts. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The answer may be somewhere in the middle, but still there would be many more people affected in Kent and Essex than is the case at the moment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The Noise Advisory Council is the body set up by the Labour administration to advise us about its judgment of all these highly complex matters. The council is composed of the best experts available to us, and they reached the judgment which was quoted accurately by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).

Mr. Moate: I have seen Press comments on the reports of the Noise Advisory Council and I have seen a number of other reports from many other experts. In those cases it is normal to see some substantiation of them. In the case of the Noise Advisory Council we get only a short unsubstantiated statement. I am a little sceptical about that body, which I understand is staffed fully from the Department of the Environment. I do not say that the Council is wrong and that others are right. But there is an overwhelming body of opinion emerging to the effect that we shall have very much less noise round existing airports as a result of new technologies. Supporters of Maplin tend to brush that aside. We cannot afford to do that.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Some of the opinion suggesting that there will be a sudden drop in the noise round London is put forward by people who have an economic interest in not having Maplin.

Mr. Moate: Even people like Professor Walters, a member of the Roskill Commission, admit that the commission did not make adequate allowance for the introduction of wide-bodied, quieter aircraft. There is a great deal of evidence


to show that noise nuisance round Heathrow and Gatwick will become less and that a far greater contribution to that reduction in noise will be made by the introduction of new aircraft than by constructing Maplin.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is a little illogical in his approach. He wishes to relieve his constituents of aircraft noise. His argument is for the total closure of Heathrow. But Heathrow will stay there. It is a fact of life that there is a major international airport situated close to a large residential area. It is not yet up to capacity. The Government plan more aircraft movements there by the mid-1980s. Even with Maplin, his only hope lies in quieter aircraft. Maplin will make only a small contribution to the quality of life of people living in the area of Heathrow. But it will do so at a tremendous cost to Essex and Kent in economic terms, in terms of a wrong regional policy and in terms of the environment. I say nothing of its effect on the general economic efficiency of our aviation industry and of the country as a whole.

Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is no Maplin, Heathrow will have to be developed and used to its full capacity, whereas if there is an airport at Maplin it will be possible as a deliberate act of policy to restrict the number of flights in and out of Heathrow and to operate it at below its technical capacity?

Mr. Moate: That is possible. However, there is no suggestion that Heathrow will not be developed to its full capacity. If we are not to have a new airport at Maplin until 1982 it will be possible to develop Heathrow to take far more passengers. At the moment £100 million is being spent at Heathrow to improve passenger handling capacity, probably nearly up to the 40 million figure to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred as though it was a dreadful threat. That will happen anyway. It has to be faced as a fact of life. We cannot dodge it.

Mr. Adley: Taking my hon. Friend's point and the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), does my hon. Friend agree that if those hon. Members who speak for their consti-

tuents round Heathrow and Gatwick made a thorough study of the facts they would agree with the point which the hon. Member for Putney half made and with the point which I made on Second Reading and again on Report, that the only way to make Maplin work would be to phase out Heathrow and Gatwick completely over a period of 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Moate: There is considerable logic in that argument. However, Mr. David Nicholson, the Chairman of British Airways, said recently that it would cost £40 million to transfer only 10 per cent. of British Airways activities to Maplin in terms of operating costs. It is clear, therefore, that Heathrow will have to remain as an international airport and a nuisance to many people living nearby.
As one who has consistently opposed Maplin, nevertheless I pay tribute to the Government for having gone even further than accepting the spirit of the amendment moved in this House on Report. They have said that this matter should be the subject of a further vote in this House. I pay tribute to the Government's willingness, however belated, that there should be further parliamentary control over this proposition.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State argued with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) about the Labour Party's having adopted a somewhat irrational posture. However, it was only very recently that the Government moved from their own slightly irrational posture in favour of the project and decided to take a second look at it.
Now we are told that we are to have a further review and a report, probably by the spring of next year. If it is to be done properly, that is a colossal undertaking. It means virtually a new national airports policy study, taking into account all the regional implications, a new national ports study, the study of all the noise implications and all the representations coming from local authorities, and reporting back to this House by the spring. It is like compressing into a matter of months the Roskill Commission's work, which took years. I should have preferred my right hon. and learned Friend to say "It may take a year or even two, but we shall come back with a thorough report".
There has been one significant change in recent months. Whereas the Government maintained that it was desperately urgent to have this new airport by 1980, nearly every report that has come forward since say that we have more time, that time is on our side. We know that there is sufficient runway capacity at existing airports to carry us over until 1985. Let us use the time wisely. If some people say that we must not waste time, I suggest that it is far better to do that than to lay waste large parts of our our countryside in Essex, with massive envirronmental damage, and to waste much needed economic resources which could be better directed to other regions of the country. Even if there is no net national saving, I suggest that there is an overwhelming case for a proper regional strategy and a proper national airports study.
The other day I was reading a debate which took place in this House in June 1967. The Conservative Opposition of the time were calling for an independent inquiry into a national airport policy, in the context of which a decision on a third London airport could be taken. The Opposition argued that it was wrong to make a decision about Stansted or any other international airport except in the context of a national airport policy. In office we have taken a decision on South-East airports and set up a national inquiry into airport policy specifically excluding the South-East. That is quite irrational.
In moving the motion then my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said:
I believe that the Government will make a very great mistake if a false sense of prestige or a miscalculated judgment of the urgency of implementing some immediate decision leads them to cling obstinately to their present choice.
Those words are pretty apt today. It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who wound up the debate. He said:
they persist in thinking that standing firm on the wrong policy is a sign of strength. What they talk about as being firmness appears now to very large numbers of people, notably on this issue, as just plain, ordinary obstinacy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June 1967; Vol. 749, c. 770–861.]
I concede that the action of the Government in allowing a further debate and vote next year, with a report to be

brought before the House, means that they cannot yet be accused of clinging obstinately to their policy. But how much better it would be if they took the opportunity available in the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), and took two years to make the fullest possible study of the project, with all its implications for our national economy.
Two years is not too long a time in which to come to a right decision on this project. We have time. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and use wisely the time which we have available.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) raised two important matters which should be cleared up. First, the report is not to be a reappraisal of the fundamental considerations. It is not to revalue the original factors which led to the decision being taken to have an airport at Maplin. The report will deal with second thoughts on matters other than the fundamental aspects of the whole argument.
One or two Government hon. Members giggled when I referred to the Labour Party having taken a decision. It was suggested from the Government benches that that decision was taken by the Labour Party in advance of the publication of a subsequent report. It was thought hilarious that the Labour Party was being irrational. It did not occur to Government hon. Members that their Government, as the hon. Member for Faversham has said, came to the conclusion that they had sufficient evidence to take a decision as big as the Maplin decision on the evidence available. The fact is that the Labour Party had similar evidence on which it could come to a decision. Therefore, if it was rational for the Government to decide on Maplin, surely it is rational for the Labour Party to make a decision against Maplin, having considered the same kind of evidence.
There is nothing irrational about the Labour Party's decision. Let me restate its position. The Labour Party, and the Parliamentary Labour Party in particular, has come to a decision against Maplin. It has said clearly and unequivocally that immediately after the


General Election, if it is elected into Government, it will kill the Maplin project. I hope that the Press will take that decision seriously.
The Press has not so far announced to the country the Labour Party's decision on Maplin—namely, that it would kill Maplin. There are tremendous implications. I ask the Press to debate the issue throughout the country and to let people know that the Labour Party has taken that decision.
I support the amendment which provides that the matter should be put back for two years. I do so because we shall have a General Election within two years. It is the opinion of many hon. Members that we shall have a General Election in October 1974. I accept that there are those who do not have quite that amount of confidence. Some Government hon. Members feel that the Government should run to March 1975. However, the majority opinion is next October.
If that is the case, there is an overwhelming argument for delaying the whole business for two years and for the Government not to be involved in intermediate contracts between now and the General Election. Let us wait to see what the people have to say about Maplin. Should they decide to support a future Labour Government, it will mean that Maplin will be killed as a project.
There is another reason for delaying the decision for a further two years. That does not concern the further report which is on its way. The research projects, investigations and exploration which are now going ahead affect many planning projects throughout the South-East and some of the London boroughs. They are having an adverse effect upon rehousing and redevelopment schemes which are envisaged anywhere near the line between the centre of London and Maplin Sands. I appeal to the Government to consider that aspect, bearing in mind what is clearly the Labour Party's position—namely, that if a Labour Government are elected, any outstanding contracts for building work which are made between now and the General Election will be stopped. That being the position, there might be some unfortunate consequences

for any company which might be tendering to undertake that sort of work.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings) rose—

Mr. Atkinson: I shall give way in a moment. We should be aware of what is involved in the Labour Party's decision. We could be spending or committing ourselves to spending large amounts of money between now and the General Election, and such contracts will be broken if a Labour Government are elected.

Mr. Warren: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking with great authority about his party's policy. Will he confirm that his party's policy on the breaking of contracts has been agreed with the TUC and that full compensation will be paid to all the workers involved in the contracts which his party proposes to break?

Mr. Atkinson: I raised the subject because of the tremendously important implications.

Mr. Warren: Will the hon. Member give an assurance?

Mr. Atkinson: In a moment. It would be wrong for us to talk flippantly about a £1,000 million or £2,000 million project without recognising the implications if the present Government are defeated at the next General Election and if there is a change of direction for the third airport project. That of necessity puts in jeopardy existing contracts in terms of continuity of work, financial commitment and many other matters. If it is not the intention of a future Labour Government to continue with the work put in hand by the present Government, there must be a breaking of contract somewhere; otherwise we would perpetuate useless work.
The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) is right to ask for assurances, but it is not for me to give them because I am in no position to do so. It has been made clear that this is the Labour Party's intention, and the hon. Gentleman must ask my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench the question he seeks to put to me. My right hon. Friends, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), have announced in clear terms that this is the policy of the Labour


Party. Therefore, if trade unionists and contractors take on contracts in this development, they must be quite clear about the implications.

Mr. Jessel: May I seek to draw the hon. Gentleman a little further into the future in terms of Labour Party policy? If the Labour Party loses the next General Election but one and by that time, in 1978 or 1979, Maplin airport is half built, will it then cancel the project and drop the contracts?

Mr. Atkinson: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Jessel: So is the other one.

Mr. Atkinson: It is not for me to look into that particular crystal ball. I am talking about the General Election which must take place within the next 18 months. We are concerned about the work that is now being placed and the research teams which are now being assembled by various authorities. I am concerned about three areas of activity. I refer first to the work to be undertaken by the local authorities, secondly to the work being undertaken by British Railways, and thirdly to the work to be placed by the Maplin Development Authority. Those three organisations within the next 12 months are committed to vast research, and this will involve considerable resources in furthering the development of the project.
The decision taken by the Government has blighted property and possessions in the South-East. It has already, in advance, blighted work on the drawing boards in considering future plans. The fact that the scheme is projected into the future will cause tremendous difficulties. The high-speed rail links between Maplin and Kings Cross will bisect my constituency, and this has already caused delays in certain planning proposals. Planning authorities will have to put back large rehousing schemes in my borough until they know the decision about the rail links and roads.

Mr. Allason: I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is wholly undesirable that there should be any delay in this matter and that there should be an early decision. If that is so, why is he in favour of a two-year delay?

Mr. Atkinson: Because the project is so large that there should be maximum national consultation. I do not envisage the total scrapping of a third airport, but I doubt whether it should be at Maplin. I am not opposed to a third airport on the coast elsewhere, for there are good arguments for such a proposal. I am arguing that the third airport should not be at Maplin. I feel that there should be maximum consultation and that this should take place after the General Election. I am arguing that the Government should not do too much damage in the next 12 or 18 months by placing contracts but that they should delay the whole project until a clear decision is taken. If after the next General Election there is seen to be mass support for the project, we must bow to that decision and no more will be heard about overriding problems, except perhaps about consideration of peripheral issues. The project would then go ahead in those circumstances. I am asking the Government to alert the various teams employed by the three authorities I have mentioned not to undertake initial work or to organise themselves on the basis that this project of necessity will go ahead. It may be that following a General Election a different decision will be taken.
We must remember that there is much work to be done in terms of soil mechanics, exploration of various kinds, and research by various design teams brought together by British Rail, and that this will involve a great deal of expenditure. Extensive underground work will have to be undertaken, and I understand that the railways intend to go in for a fast link underground. There are enormous implications in all these factors and much money will be spent in the next 12 months. I am arguing that if we wait until after the next General Election for a decision to be taken, we shall avoid a great deal of disruption. To put the matter colloquially, we are making the best of a rotten position.
What I have said may sound somewhat illogical to Conservatives, and they may be right in criticising some of the weakness in my argument. I understand the weakness of our case. Unfortunately, many authorities find themselves over a barrel in that they can do nothing about the situation.
Let there be a decision to go ahead with rehousing in the north-east of London. Let us also go ahead with road development, new bridge construction and so on. All these plans have been put into limbo because planners are inhibited by their lack of knowledge of what is to happen. If the Government put back a firm decision, this will allow the planners to have confidence in what they are doing. At the moment we are getting the worst of all worlds. We are suffering because of the decision that has been taken, and we are suffering even more because the official Opposition do not go along with the Government in this important project. This is a unique situation in a massive development of this kind. I do not recollect a similar project of this size dividing opinion in this way. On these grounds I ask that the matter should be put back for a period of two years.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I find myself wondering what exactly the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was saying. It appears that the only thing he objects to about the Maplin project is the choice of Maplin. When he says that the Labour Party will not go ahead with Maplin, he is not saying that the Labour Party will not go ahead with the third London airport on some reclaimed site. It appears to me that it it is the choice of Maplin, no doubt because it has been made by a Conservative administration, that the hon. Gentleman finds unacceptable. Be that as it may, I shall oppose the amendment. I believe it is a wrecking amendment which, if passed, is likely to damage the Maplin project to a point where it can have little or no usefulness.
7.15 p.m.
1 believe that the choice of the Maplin site, while it may in itself have been made for environmental reasons, was born out of necessity, which no one has yet denied—the fact that we may well reach saturation at the existing airports serving Greater London and the South-East. Therefore, one either accepts the Roskill concept of the ideal cost-benefit site, namely Cublington, or—and I wonder how many of us could disagree?—that an inland site for a new airport is unacceptable today on environmental grounds.
It seems right that the Secretary of State should have told the House today that he is initiating a new study to reconsider all the arguments that brought the Roskill Committee to its solution of Cublington. However, he is now applying those arguments to the need for a third airport to serve the South-East. He has said—and I hope that he can fulfil his promise—that we are likely to have that report by next spring. I should have thought that optimistic. Just the same, I welcome his statement in particular because, as I said in an interjection, it is thought that the hydraulic model that is being used to test the shape of the reclamation will have produced its results in or about the spring of 1974.
I interpose here to say that I was a member of the Select Committee which for three weeks considered the whole Maplin project and listened to the petitions against it. The chairman was the late Martin Maddan—a most able chairman, whom I am sure many hon. Members miss. One of the things that struck me forcefully about those intensive three weeks was the amount of research already in hand by the Department of the Environment.
To suggest that the decisions on the project have been made with minimal effort to find out the truth of the arguments would be an appalling fallacy. In fact, we were impressed all the way through by the arguments presented by counsel representing the Department of the Environment; in particular by the statement that no work would start until the shape of the reclamation had been decided, and that even then the reclamation would take place phase by phase.
We had impressed upon us the need for speed. Clearly, if the airport is to meet a demand it must be there to meet it. If it is built after that demand is peaked the demand will go elsewhere. I wish that we were in the position of the French, who are to open their third Paris airport next spring, but we are not. We have to wait for ours.
What we must not be guilty of is to delay the airport concept any longer than absolutely necessary. It may be argued that the new study will prove that all the Roskill arguments are invalidated, that there will not be saturation at Heathrow


and at Gatwick, that aircraft noise reduction techniques are just round the corner and that other technological inventions are so close that to go ahead with the airport would be nonsense.
Since I believe, however, that the Government do not look upon Maplin as a prestigious project, whatever that may be, but as a necessity, and that they are going ahead with the project because it is a necessity for the good of the country I also believe that if the project were no longer for the good of the country, they would willingly stop it.
The reclamation as now planned is a phased reclamation. It could be chopped off year by year—it is not one of totality. Indeed, at this moment we are talking only about reclaiming 14,000 acres out of a possible 18,000 acres, which would, in effect, mean a two-runway airport.
It is a pity that we do not make more of the argument about secondary social advantages that may well come to that part of South-East England as a result of the project. Anybody who has driven to Southend is conscious of the appalling road links to that area. Therefore, a motorway to Maplin could provide a badly-needed road link, to South-East Essex, which could be a boon to all the people in that region.
The same goes for the train link. Indeed, I hope that that train link will become a very fast link—a high-speed passenger train link—which also could be of great benefit to commuters living in that part of the country.
I come now to the question of noise. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that the only leg the Government now had to stand on was the concept of Maplin as a noise-free airport, or at least an airport that would relieve Heathrow, Gatwick and Greater London of noise. This is just not true. Maplin will be there to meet the need to relieve congestion. Although the CAA figures may depart marginally from Roskill, to the extent of 4 per cent., they do not depart to any great or marked degree so as to allow him or any of his hon. Friends to say, "All right, we do not need Maplin and we shall not need Stansted, Southend, or Luton". They cannot say it. They know that if they do not have Maplin they will have to develop Stansted, and we all know what happened the

last time anybody suggested that. They will have to develop Luton, even if Luton does not want it, and they will have to develop Southend—which at present is a sleepy, small town airport.
That is the price they will have to pay. They will also have to pay the price of new terminal buildings at Heathrow, and. more important, a new access to West London, because the M4, by any Ministry of Transport standards, is already saturated. Has anybody estimated the cost of a new access route from London Heathrow through to West London? It must be enormous, but it will be a necessity if we are to develop Heathrow to the maximum extent.
It seems to me, therefore, that the advantages of a piece of reclaimed land—which at this moment is a firing-range—and two access routes, custom-built for the purpose, with their secondary social advantages to the area in general, present a better proposition, even assuming, as I say, that one was prepared to build all the extra accessories required at Stansted, Luton and Southend.
Finally, a word on noise. I understand that there are at this moment in commercial service in the world 8,300 civil airliners, of which only 350 fit into the so-called quieter category. We talk about hush-kits and quieter engines, but we refuse to accept that those engines which make noise were designed in a technology which did not consider noise as a parameter. If we are now to make those engines silent, and we have to start all over again, the cost of converting each engine for each airliner will simply be unacceptable to the airlines which run them.
It may well be that some Government will have the courage to say, "Just the same, we will not have noisy airliners operating at our airfields. We will impose noise limits or noise fines, or an FAR 36—only much tougher than that—or a noise certification order which will make it impossible for world airlines to operate those aircraft. Only the quiet ones will, therefore, be allowed."
But I do not believe that many hon. Members honestly think that any Government would feel that they had the right to tell airlines which had invested millions of pounds in their fleets that they should write those fleets off at a


stroke simply because of this one parameter.
That being so—and I remind the House that BEA has been operating Viscounts for 18 years, so that one can take it that airlines will be operating noisy aeroplanes for 10 or 15 more years—the idea that one can cut out Maplin and tell the people around Heathrow and Gatwick, "We shall see if we can quieten the engines, but, whether we can, or whether we cannot, you will have to put up with it", will be unacceptable in environmental terms.
I have no difficulty, therefore, in opposing the amendment or in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for his announcement about the new study. I sincerely hope that the House will not run away with the idea that Maplin is a party project but will see it as a most valuaable addition to the overall economy.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) made certain rather dubious assertions, First that there is an air traffic demand which Maplin is supposed to meet. Over the last few years, the growing burden of expert evidence has tended to disprove the theory that there is such a demand and that there will therefore be a problem towards the end of this decade and at the beginning of the next in terms of runway and terminal capacity.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) built their case around the environmental problem and noise in connection with Heathrow and Luton. This is a major problem, but it is not central to the issue. Maplin must stand or fall in its own merits. Heathrow will not disappear it Maplin is created.
Noise cannot be the governing factor because it must be remembered that the problem arises in various other parts of the country with for instance low-flying military aircraft. Thousands of such flights take place every day. With contour flying at 200 ft. above sea level in populated parts of South-West Wales and Scotland, the environmental problem, noise, and the danger of a plane crash—of which the hon. Member for Twicken-

ham made a great deal of play—is present in these areas as well, yet the Government have no intention of stopping such exercises. It is therefore fallacious—indeed, dangerous—to defend Maplin on the basis of the environmental problem. One could argue for other parts of the country which are daily confronted with similar dangers—for instance, where there are bombing ranges, and in areas where low-flying exercises take place over towns and villages in Carmarthenshire and elsewhere.
The Maplin project must stand or fall on economic grounds, namely, that it is there to meet a demand. I am sure that the Secretary of State, by calling for a further reappraisal, is telling us that he is not sure about the economics of the case; that he is not sure a problem exists. If the Government are satisfied that Maplin is needed, why have a further review? If the Government are determined to press ahead why bother with the extended study that is now taking place?
I submit that the two-year extension proposed in the amendment is of value for many reasons. First, the Secretary of State must be aware that there is a growing feeling in the regions and nations of Britain that there is a tremendous imbalance in likely future Government expenditure between London, the South-East, the regions, Wales and Scotland. There is a growing feeling that prestige projects involving mammoth Government expenditure are envisaged over the next decade or so for London and the South-East—projects that will increase the disparity between, say, Wales and London and the South-East.

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon indicated dissent.

Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but if he were to come to Wales or Scotland more often I am sure that he would be far more aware that this disparity exists. The two-years' extension would enable the Government to have a re-think on that matter and allay fears as to Government expenditure intentions.
If, as the Government claim, there is a need for a third airport, why not make the building of such an airport central to solving certain regional problems? An airport—or a seaport—could be used as a means of eradicating certain regional


imbalances. The selection of an alternative site could be part of a regional policy, because the provision of such a basic infrastructure service as an airport could cause the regeneration of a region.
7.30 p.m.
One could make a case for Severnside, but I shall not develop it tonight, because of the time factor. Severnside has powerful arguments in its favour as a seaport and as an airport. It has assets and facilities which, if used, could help to solve the regional problems of South-West England and South Wales. Land is available. Communication with London is good, ports facilities exist, and it is near a development area. It would at least help to meet and solve some of those problems. One could argue strongly in that direction.
The two-years' extension for which the amendment calls could tie up the question of the need for the airport with the question how it could help to solve regional problems in a part of Britain. The cost—£1,000 million or whatever it is—is a mammoth figure. This country is not in a position to have another failure such as those we have had in the past. Concorde is clearly a failure. Whatever one wishes to say about Concorde—

Mr. Anthony Fell: Rubbish.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish", but time will prove who is right. That it is a failure is my assessment.
Therefore, the regional aspect must come into this decision. Over the last few months there has been a growing use of the regional airports. Therefore, why not use this two-year period to also look into the methods whereby the facilities at the regional airports could be improved to solve the problem of congestion?
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East made great play of the question of congestion. But Maplin will increase the burden on essential services for London and the South-East, where already the services are over-stretched and the demand upon essential services is reaching its limit. Therefore, in view of the congestion in London and the South-East, Maplin is wrong.
Maplin has become a sensitive issue which divides Members on both sides of the House. One of my hon. Friends who spoke earlier, supports Maplin on a constituency basis. That is perfectly laudable and reasonable; he was elected by his constituents to defend their interests.
Now that we have been told that there is not such an urgent need for Maplin as was first thought, the Government can well afford to take the two years for which the amendment calls to reconsider the whole problem in terms of the regional impact, the regional airports, and the question of how it could solve the problem of congestion in London and the South-East.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said, if we are returned to power Maplin is one of the first projects we shall kill. If we have this amount of money to spend—£1.000 million, or whatever it is—let us tie it up into providing better airport facilities, but also as a basis for improving and correcting the regional imbalance.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The amendment, which seeks to defer action by a further two years, has much to commend it but it still leaves many weaknesses inherent in the Bill as a whole. It has much to commend it because there are other aspects still uncovered in the Bill taking the project as a whole.
The House may be aware that within the last year public tender prices by contractors have escalated by 47 per cent., according to the latest figure I was given. This has two important bearings on this matter. Any estimates given to us by Ministers on Second Reading are substantially and significantly obsolete by today. There tends to be an inherent assumption in quoting costs of future events that inflation does not matter because even in times of gross inflation all costs tend to rise by the same amount, that the relationship between expenditure of this kind, gross national product and taxation yields remains recognisably constant.
I have never seen any evidence to support this assumption, but it is implicit in those who state a cost on Second Reading, do not amend it on Third Reading, and do not amend it again tonight, when during the months between Second Reading and tonight public works


tenders have increased by about 20 per cent. One-fifth of £1,000 million is £200 million. So to those of us who earlier predicted that the total cost of Maplin would be not £1,000 million but at least £2,000 million in the event, it looks as if already a fifth of the difference between the Government's figure and ours has been overcome by events, and not even one year has yet gone by since Second Reading. Therefore, the arithmetic in which those who favour the Bill place their trust is already extremely shaky.
There is, however, a much more important consideration. During this period the price of constructing houses throughout the United Kingdom has increased by leaps and bounds. These matters are closely related. I do not believe—this is not a statement of faith but a reasonable assumption—that one can drop hundreds or thousands of millions of pounds worth of public works contracts into the system without stimulating an insupportable degree of inflation in house building costs.
Ministers may say that some of the houses which are to be built at Maplin, if the Bill ever achieves actuality, would have to be built somewhere for the increase in population, in any event. That is true, but it is such a minute truth as not to be strictly relevant to the major argument. With the unsatisfactory showing of house building in both the public and the private sector, due among other factors to the escalation in costs, the further gross aggravation of that by dropping this quantum of public works contracts into an unexpanded capacity will be insufferable. This is something to which serious thought should be given.
My right hon. and learned Friend was at his best in the sense of being all things to all men this afternoon. Everything he said could have been welcomed if looked at uncritically by those who support an airport at Maplin, and by those who oppose an airport at Maplin.
The definitive statement of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was of equally succinct ambiguity when he said that the position of the Labour Party "at this time" was "unalterably", and so on. Either the position is "at this time", and may alter at another time, or it is "unalterable". I

think he will agree that those two were somewhat circular.

Mr. Crosland: May I clear up once and for all what was not a very happy phrase? What I intended by the phrase "as of now" was that the Labour Party's policy is already at this moment unalterably opposed to Maplin.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful. If something is unalterable, it means that it does not alter with an efflux of time. I am glad that that ambiguity has been cleared up.
We have heard much about parliamentary control. We are discussing Lords Amendment No. 4 with this, and it will be noted that the statutory instrument procedure therein contained is not that which gives Parliament the maximum opportunity of controlling the executive. It is that which gives Parliament the minimum opportunity of controlling the executive.
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend a question in an intervention on this point, and unfortunately, as was typical of his whole speech, his answer was so bland as to be meaningless. Why is it that the Government did not write into this amendment—I understand it was a Government amendment in the House of Lords—the affirmative resolution procedure so that action could not be taken by the Minister without the authority of the House? That would have been consistent with the undertakings given by the Minister, but that is not what has been done.
As the House well knows, and as the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation has highlighted, statutory instruments, by the negative resolution procedure, can come into effect as soon as they are laid. They do not have to wait for the 40 days of praying time to pass before they come into effect, as some people innocently believe. The form of words which my right hon. and learned Friend used was consistent with a situation wherein, although praying time had elapsed and, therefore, a vote of the House could no longer annul a statutory instrument, as long as the Government gave time for a debate the Minister's undertaking would have been fulfilled. But it would not have the effect of annulling a statutory instrument.
In this Session of Parliament the Government gave time for the consideration of motions concerned with the annulment of statutory instruments the praying time for which had already expired. This is not a hypothetical situation; it has already arisen. It may be outside the control of the Government. Praying days, as presently defined in Standing Orders and in the Statutory Instruments Act 1947, include the three days at the beginning of a new Parliament when no business can be entertained except the swearing in of new Members. If the Government, in good faith, intend that there should be a debate within the 40 days but a Parliament conies to an end, they may find themselves powerless to carry out the undertaking that they have given. That is not hypothetical, because under the last administration there were only four days of praying time remaining against the order setting up the new county borough of Torbay. Three of those four days were taken up with swearing in Members at the beginning of a Parliament.
Praying days can be lost for many other reasons—for instance, because a new Speaker is being elected that day, when no other business is taken. Praying days include, as is known to the Chair, Saturdays and Sundays. They include Fridays, when the practice of the House, though not its Standing Orders, prevents prayers from being entertained. They include days when the House adjourns out of respect for some Head of State who has died. There are many reasons whereby even acting in good faith the Government are powerless to honour an undertaking that time will be given for a debate on a statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure.
7.45 p.m.
Therefore, if the Government are in earnest in saying that they intend under Lords Amendment No. 4 that no action should be taken to set about the construction of Maplin Airport without parliamentary consent, it is absolutely incumbent on them to amend Lords Amendment No. 4 so that it is the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure which activates the Bill. This is critical. Unfortunately, misunderstandings grow out of the sort of language which has been used.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): There is not such an amendment on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That intervention would have been more helpful if my hon. Friend had said which amendment he believes has that effect.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry; I was trying to clarify the matter. There is not an amendment on the Notice Paper to turn the present negative resolution procedure into affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is not, but the Secretary of State gave undertakings which could be met only by the affirmative resolution procedure. Yet the Government have not sought to amend Lords Amendment No. 4 so that it would be, if passed by the House, compatible with the undertakings given by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Heseltine: If my hon. Friend felt that he was not able to accept the negative resolution procedure, why did he not table an amendment which would have enabled us to debate this matter and, perhaps, reach a conclusion on it? Now it is too late.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Because I was not pre-informed by the Secretary of State of the nature of the undertaking which he intended to give in his speech. He did not yesterday send me a copy of the speech he intended to make today. Yesterday, presumably, he knew what undertakings he intended to give. I did not know what undertakings he intended to give. As he knew yesterday what undertakings he intended to give, he could have carried out that undertaking by tabling a Government amendment. I could not table an amendment to encompass an undertaking of which I was unaware until this afternoon, when it was too late to table an amendment I hope that that explanation is conclusive. Precognition is not a quality which I claim.
It is typical of the manner in which the Bill has been handled that ministerial action is in no way consistent. There was an occasion before Second Reading when a colleague present in the Chamber and myself went to visit my hon. Friend


the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) in his Department. At the end of that meeting my hon. Friend gave us a solemn undertaking that the Government would completely reconsider the Bill in the light of the representations which we had made, which would have taken several days to reconsider. Within hours my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in an interview with a journalist, said that the Government were determined not to reconsider the Bill. It is events of that kind that make me wish to see written into the Bill words which render inevitable the carrying out of undertakings given, rather than procedures which, even with good will on the part of the Minister concerned, can be frustrated by events outside his control.
The negative resolution procedure is basically suitable for uncontroversial matters. The affirmative resolution procedure is that which is appropriate to highly controversial matters, because it means that the Government must find time for it in their programme if they wish to activate whatever is the matter concerned.
I shall ask again whichever Minister winds up this debate to tell us why the Secretary of State, who, presumably, knew yesterday what he was going to say today, did not table an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 4, substituting the affirmative resolution procedure for the negative resolution procedure.
Reverting to Lords Amendment No. 1, as amended by Commons Amendment No. 1,
after 'date' insert not being less than two years after the date of the passing of this Act'",
there are other merits for this. As an Opposition Member pointed out, there is a considerable amount of blight resulting from the uncertainty about whether Maplin construction will ever begin. There are people living at Foulness who, should it become certain that the project will go ahead, will need completely to reorganise their lives because their homes will be destroyed, their livelihoods will be taken away, and their children will have to go to other schools.
When a whole community is annihilated, two years is not an excessive luxuriance of time in which to remove

themselves to some other location. They do not know now whether they will have to move. They will not know, should the Bill become law, whether they will have to move. They will only know that they have to move on the day when the Government lay the statutory instrument. That is the first moment that they will know whether they have to move.
On human grounds there is an excellent case for embodying my hon. Friend's amendment about two years. That does not mean that the Government cannot enter into contingent contracts, a contingent contract being one with a break clause in it. It does not necessarily, therefore, postpone the construction, the completion, or the operation of an airport by as much a period of time as the amendment might by form suggest, because preliminary work can be authorised. There will be tremendous amounts of tender work to be done—consideration of tenders and contract writing—which could be done on a contingency basis with the two-year amendment included.
I welcome Commons Amendment No. 1 to Lords Amendment No. 1 on human grounds, quite apart from the fundamental ground that, if we are unable to secure the total defeat of the Bill, at least the longer the whole project is delayed the greater will be the opportunities of testing its necessity against events which have happened, as opposed to events which are anticipated. The whole history of economic prediction in this country since 1945—if it shows anything—shows the imprecision of the economic predictive arts. George Brown's famous National Plan would not even sell as a publisher's remnant two years after it was published. He received the full co-operation of the CBI, the TUC, the Associated British Chambers of Commerce and every source that could assist in terms of prediction, and yet the work was worthless within 24 months.
I do not believe that there has been such a dramatic transformation in the predictive arts that we are now in a position to launch into such a desperately inflationary project as this at the moment. The more the project can be delayed the better will be the opportunities for dispassionate reassessment as time passes.

Mr. Graham Tope: My intervention will be brief,


because inevitably at this stage in a debate on a subject which has been discussed on so many previous occasions most of the points I wish to make have already been made.
I agree with the points made by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), and I start my remarks in a similar vein by saying that the Liberal Party, too, is unalterably opposed to the Maplin project—fullstop. Perhaps I could also follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and say that should a Liberal Government be returned after the General Election we, too, would kill Maplin dead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has spoken on three occasions in the House on this subject. On the first occasion—as long ago as 1971—he questioned the need for a third London airport. At that time I believe he was in a minority—a minority that has grown substantially since then.
My noble Friends in another place have frequently questioned the need for and many of the assumptions underlying the Maplin project. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments which have been made by many hon. Members.
I do not believe that anything has emerged to strengthen the Government's case for going ahead with the Maplin project. Nothing the Government or the dwindling band of friends of Maplin have said has done anything to allay doubts or satisfy public questioning about the validity of the project. Indeed, it seems that the longer it is delayed the more doubts there are.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby raised a number of these doubts which have emerged during the Recess. For instance, the Chairman of the British Airways Board has complained of inadequate consultation. He estimated an annual loss of £40 million to that public corporation if it is forced to go to Maplin. We have had the report of the Air Transport Committee of the British Chamber of Commerce, which itself has strongly questioned the concept of Maplin and has called for a national airport policy. Sir Peter Masefield, writing in Flight, has also questioned the protect.
In last Sunday's Observer we had the report of Professor John Large's study in which he has said that far more could be achieved to help those living near Heathrow if we were to concentrate on quietening aircraft and new flying techniques rather than by going ahead with the Maplin project.
There are many points which one could rehearse again and again, not least of which is the current world energy crisis, which has been highlighted even more by the tragic events in the Middle East. Why do we seek to go ahead with an enormous—I think a prestigious—project at Maplin without yet taking into account where our energy resources are to come from and what those implications are?
I have referred already to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. Earlier this year, in another debate on this subject, he said:
I think this is a public expenditure mistake, a communications blunder and an environmental disaster. Above all, I think it is a regional planning catastrophe and it ought to be withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 723–4.]
We have seen nothing since that time to alter or to shake our belief that he was right then and that he is right now. We should prefer the abandonment of this project. I made that clear at the beginning of my remarks. But, failing that, we support wholeheartedly the amendments, particularly that seeking the delay of two years, which will give the Government time to consider this matter further.
I welcome the Secretary of State's explanation tonight of the contents of the study, and I feel sure that the study will conclude that the Maplin project should not go ahead. On those grounds, we shall support the amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: The Government have already had to accept, for practical reasons, a two-year delay in the opening of Maplin and have now put it back to the spring of 1982.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbuy (Mr. Crouch) outwardly seeks in his amendment to put back that opening date by a further two years, but I believe that his real objective, and certainly the objective of most of those who have


spoken in support of his amendment, is to wreck the Maplin project.
Either delay or total abandonment would be a very heavy and quite unnecessary burden on the environment of London itself and the surrounding green belt. It is easy from a tranquil seat in Canterbury to say that we have plenty of time to go on reviewing this matter. Nobody who lives under the noise stress of aircraft from Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton would support that statement for one moment. People living in those areas demand relief as soon as the Government can provide it, and I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State saying today that they will press on with all speed to complete their studies so that no time is lost, if Parliament decides to go ahead, in getting Maplin opened at the earliest possible moment.
Delay or abandonment would be a heavy burden on the environment, as I have said. But it would also be a burden on international air traffic seeking London, as the means for the handling and dispersal of passengers and the gathering and redispersal of staff working at Heathrow, Gatwick and the other airports become more and more congested.
We have been given by the British Airports Authority a picture of the surging growth of air traffic that we must expect in the 15 years between 1970 and 1985. Between those dates the United Kingdom total passenger traffic would increase from 31 million to 131 million 87 million would be aiming at the London area; and 44 million passengers—a fourfold increase—would be aiming at regional airports. There would need to be a great expansion there.
At the same time freight would, on current trends, increase even faster.
The Government have just confirmed that Maplin could be opened by 1982. It could, shortly after that, be taking 40 per cent. of the traffic, including most of the night flights, aiming at London. This would leave the other London airports—Heathrow and Gatwick—to control their growth. I thought it was highly imaginative of one hon. Member to talk about the case for closing down Heathrow and Gatwick entirely. No one

in his senses considers that a practical proposition.
Gatwick and Heathrow could control their growth, Luton could reduce its traffic, and Stansted and Southend could close. In this way Britain could come to terms, in a civilised manner, with the soaring demand for air travel both in this country and outside. But without Maplin we would be facing a truly terrible prospect for environment in the South-East. In these 15 years from 1970 to 1985 Heathrow passengers would increase from 15½ million to 50 million—over three times. Gatwick passengers would increase from 3¾ million to 35 million—nine times. The three other airports round London would together increase from 3 million to 35 million passengers—nearly 12 times.
To handle this traffic the expansion of these airports, the congestion of air and ground traffic, the pressure for service buildings and housing for the airport staff, and the demand for new access by road and rail would further clog the congested areas round Heathrow and Gatwick. These pressures would spread outwards far and wide into areas now set aside as essential for London's green belt. Added to all this would be the increased noise, by day and by night, of the larger number and the increased weight of planes. This all adds up to a serious deterioration of a great part of London's environment.
Apart from the environmental cost, the financial cost of the expansion of these airports to their limits in crowded areas of exceptionally high land values would be astronomical. We are beginning to see this already in the areas around Gatwick.
By 1985 to 1990 we should again be in desperate need of a third great international airport in the South-East. Where would it be? In Stansted? Perhaps. In my judgment, it would inevitably come back again to Maplin, because in 1985, even more than a few years ago, the public would demand an airport not inland but on the coast. What an absurd result that would be—in the meantime to have sacrificed London's environment, clogged up our air traffic, and made a spendthrift waste of public money. That, in general, is why I am strongly opposed to this amendment to the Bill.
I want for a few minutes to speak against this delay on behalf of the Dorking constituency, which suffers from aircraft noise on the east of Gatwick, which is in my constituency. and on the west from Heathrow.
When the Government's choice was made in favour of Maplin my constituents, who continue to bear the main burden of night flights in the London area, began to look forward to a limitation of flights by day, to the virtual cessation of night take-offs, as at Heathrow, and to the gradual replacement of noisy by quieter planes. They also began to look forward to the reduction of the wild pressures on land which are making the defence of the green belt such a desperate nightmare for the planning authorities in our area at both county and district level.
If Maplin were delayed or abandoned my constituency and, I believe, its neighbours, in an area which is largely green belt, would face spreading congestion of roads, houses and industry and, above all, the din, continuous by day and by night. of heavier and more frequent aircraft. This would he the effect if Gatwick had to expand to handle, within 12 years from now, nine times the passenger traffic and an even greater expansion of air freight. It would mean a great second runway, additional housing for an extra 150,000 airport staff with their families, a great expansion of aircraft service industries and roads to carry passengers and airport staff. The whole of the surrounding green belt area would be sacrificed to a parliamentary bungle. This would be the more intolerable because people would know that it had been quite unnecessary.
My constituents are already feeling these pressures on their area, especially on land, suddenly sharpened by the mere threat that Maplin might be frustrated. They are becoming increasingly militant in the face of the threat of uncontrolled expansion at Gatwick. Once again, I believe rightly, they are becoming active and angry supporters of all the grass roots protest movements in the South-East which demand that the Government should hold firm to their decision over Maplin and should not be prevented from having Maplin's first runway in operation in 1982.
The quality of life of millions of people in the South-East will become affected by what this House decides today. I hope that the amendment will be defeated and that Maplin—a decision that was made on good environmental grounds—will stand.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am amazed and surprised that the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), for whom I normally have a high personal regard, should so dangerously mislead his constituents. If he honestly believes and tells them that they will gain some relief from aircraft noise, even if we start building Maplin Airport tomorrow, he is dangerously misleading them. In 1982—

Sir G. Sinclair: Sir G. Sinclair rose—

Mr. Huckfield: May I just finish this point? Even if we started building Maplin Airport tomorrow and could get a diversion of some aircraft by 1982—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen, because I am referring to him—the natural growth of airport traffic would already have eaten up that diversionary possibility.
The hon. Gentleman is seriously misleading his constituents on another matter. If the kind of energies and finance that the Government propose to divert into the construction of Maplin could be diverted into research and development of quieter aeroplane engines, I think that the hon. Gentleman would get some genuine relief for his constituents. If he wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way.

Sir G. Sinclair: It was not I who projected relief for those people who were suffering round Gatwick and Heathrow; it was the Secretary of State, when he announced the Maplin project.

Mr. Huckfield: All I can say is that in believing the Secretary of State the hon. Gentleman is perpetuating that dangerously misleading impression.
We have come to a stage where nobody in the airline business seriously wants Maplin. The British Airways Board does not want it, nobody whom I know privately in the British Airways Authority wants it, and certainly the Government's chosen aviation brain child, British Caledonian, does not want it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Caledonian


is certainly the main scheduled operator out of Gatwick. So we have a situation in which none of the people who ought to be influencing aviation debates is really in favour of Maplin airport—least of all the tourist operators who are operating out of Luton and are allegedly disturbing the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason).

Mr. Allason: The hon. Member may not be aware that the tour operators out of Luton realise that they are likely to face increasing night restrictions, and they are perfectly happy to move to Maplin, where they will be able to operate right round the clock without restrictions.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman can produce for me one constructive body representing tour-operating opinion which is solidly 100 per cent. in favour of Maplin, I shall gladly accept the point that he has made. So far I have not seen such a body.
The commodity which this amendment is asking for is time. I believe that we need time to consider very seriously some of the new information that is coming forth, and this amendment would give us some time—perhaps not enough, but it is worth supporting. The interesting factor is that every forecast that comes forward about the growth of air traffic demands is more accurate. The Department of Trade and Industry's forecasts and the Roskill forecasts were superseded and updated and made more accurate by the Civil Aviation Authority's forecasts. But most up to date of all are the forecasts made in connection with the Channel Tunnel study project, and the interesting fact about the Channel Tunnel figures is that they are not only more accurate than the Civil Aviation Authority's figures; they are retrodictive. In other words, if one uses in reverse the formula which the Channel Tunnel study has used, and uses it to analyse the growth of traffic which has already taken place, it fits. So what I am saying to the Minister—and I hope that he will make some reference to this point—is that we already have evidence that each set of statistics on aircraft runways and terminal demand that comes forward is more accurate, and we certainly need time to improve upon even

the Channel Tunnel study's demand forecast.
It is very interesting that the Department of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) must have believed in the accuracy of the Channel Tunnel demand forecast, because, as lie knows, the Minister for Transport Industries has already made an attempt to revise the profit share which the Government will attempt to take from the Channel Tunnel. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the accuracy of the Channel Tunnel forecasts, why did his own Department revise upwards its profit expectations from the increased Channel Tunnel traffic flow which it projected? It seems to me that we have reached a situation in which one part of the Department of the Environment already believes that there will not be so much traffic from Maplin because it will go via the Channel Tunnel—which is why that part of the Department has revised upwards its profit expectation from the Channel Tunnel—but the other part of the Department has not cottoned on to what the first part has done.
I should also like to hear some reference made by the lion. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to some of the very challenging projections and statistics put forward by Professor Peter Bromhead in his book "The Great White Elephant of Maplin Sands." Whether or not one accepts in its entirety the kind of projection made by Bromhead, that four-track high-speed railway systems are an alternative to increased airport investment, it remains a fact that at least in Germany and one or two other continental countries there is definite evidence that their Governments regard investment in four-track high-speed rail systems as a definite and superior alternative to increased airport investment. So we have already reached a stage where some fellow members of the Government's Common Market have already concluded that it is better to spend money on increased railway investment than on increased airport investment.
The hon. Member for Dorking and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) seem to believe that building Maplin will make aviation quieter, but they must know that about 65 per cent. of the aeroplanes coming into Heathrow at the moment are of the BAC 1–11 Trident type, most of which are


fitted with the Rolls-Royce Spey engine. Hon. Members also know that Rolls-Royce has calculated that a complete re-fanning project for the Spey engine would not cost more than about £30 million. It would be possible completely to refit and refan the engines of 75 per cent. of the aeroplanes coming into Heathrow, to reduce them to a noise level of no more than street level acceptability, for about £65 million.

Mr. Michael McNair Wilson: Oh, no!

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman wanted to question that fact, he had a chance to do so in his own speech. When the Minister concludes the debate will he say something about the money which the Government have been spending on research into quieter aircraft engines? It seems to me that if this Government want to show some sincerity about making aircraft engines quieter it would not do any harm to spend more money on research and development into the subject. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the economic consequences for aviation operators, I submit that they would have to do something with their 707s and DC8s. I accept that those aircraft and others of that generation are noisy, but it would be cheaper for the Government to buy up every one of the 1,400 707s and DC8s which we have operating throughout the world than to build two runways at Maplin. Those are the sort of cost alternatives that lie before this Government.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a valuable point when he described the effect on house-building costs of going in for a mammoth public expenditure project such as this. I presume he already recognises that, whenever a local authority is trying to get a public sector housing contract completed, one of its biggest difficulties always arises when there is a motorway or a bypass project in the vicinity. If one talks to local councillors who have been trying to push through an expansion of their public sector housebuilding, one finds a problem arising when there is a motorway or bypass project in the vicinity. One of the chief difficulties is that the housing part of the hon. Gentleman's Department lays down cost yardsticks for building houses, but not for road building. It will not lay down cost

yardsticks for building Maplin airport. That means that the effect which road-building projects have on public sector housebuilding projects will be magnified many times by the start and construction of Maplin.

Mr. Rippon: It will have no effect whatsoever.

Mr. Huckfield: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it will have no effect whatsoever he ought to know more than that about housing and the labour situation in the South-East, particularly in the London area. Of course, he has a provincial constituency.

Mr. Rippon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he must make a distinction between the two sides of the construction industry—the building industry and the road construction industry. He will have noticed that although we have held back certain public sector programmes we have not held back the road programme, because that is not under the same sort of pressure. He must understand that the housing problem is altogether different.

Mr. Huckfield: I am absolutely amazed that the Secretary of State can think that the labour which builds roads is not very often the same as that which builds houses The difficulty encountered by local authorities wanting to build houses is that many builders cannot get the labour, because more money can be earned on a motorway project.
I maintain that we need more time. The amendment would give us more time, because every project for researching into the future demands statistics. Every project and report that has come forward has produced a more accurate projection and, above all, a reduced traffic demand in the future. The amendment gives us more time. In the meantime, by all means let us have an extension of the terminal buildings at Heathrow. Let us have an extension of the terminal at Gatwick. That has got to be done. But please let us have more research and a more accurate forecast of future demand. That is why I support the amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Adley: As we are debating Lords amendments resulting from the passage of what was new Clause 2 standing in my name on 13th June, the right thing


for me to do would be to start by acknowledging the way in which the Government have, as they were bound to, accepted the will of the House expressed on 13th June and have re-written the new clause in another place. That is what we are debating today.
I should like to dwell mainly on the effects of that clause and say that we in this House have a duty to see that these words are implemented. It is the words "shall consult with" which I should like to clarify. It would be wrong to suggest that this is a voluntary consultation agreed to by the Department of the Environment. We all know that the consultation results from the passage of the new clause through the House of Commons. The day following that debate The Times commented in its leader entitled "The Commons does its job" as follows:
The Maplin project needs to be comprehensively reappraised before resources (and reputations) are committed beyond the point of no return.
It is this need for a precise definition of the report of which my right hon. and learned Friend has spoken this afternoon that I intend to probe a little more deeply.
Many of us have noticed the changed attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend towards those of us who have been expressing concern over a period of three years, or certainly since the rejection of Roskill by the Government, about what was likely to happen when this issue came up for final decision. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to accept that there is a tremendous amount of public anxiety not only on whether or not we need a new airport in South-East England but on the way in which this decision has been taken.
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a number of questions? He told us that the report will cover a review of the forecast of air traffic, and he included the greater use of regional airports, development of aviation technology and ground handling facilities. I want to know whether he will do two things: first, talk to people who normally talk to the Department of Trade and Industry; and, secondly, consider appointing an independent chairman for this inquiry. It would be frustrating the will

of Parliament as expressed in the new clause if it were merely to be an interdepartmental inquiry, with members of the Government committed to the Maplin project standing in front of a mirror and talking to themselves.
May I suggest somebody like Professor Hugh Ford of Imperial College as the sort of person who could perhaps chair the type of inquiry which my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned this afternoon. I should be very grateful if he would consider the appointment of such a person.
I should also be grateful if, when the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping winds up the debate, he will spell out in some detail the degree of co-operation which exists between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment in the planning and progress of the Maplin project. This is one point which has always been of great concern to me.
I want to know whether my hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any other Minister in the Department of the Environment has spoken to Rolls-Royce at all since that Department has taken charge of the handling of this Bill. I should like to know what discussions have taken place between Department of the Environment Ministers and the directors and board of Rolls-Royce on this important question of noise reduction. I should like to know whether in Lords Amendment No. 4 the words "other persons as appear to him appropriate" would include discussions with Rolls-Royce.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the arrangements which the American Government have undertaken to carry out a thorough quietening of aircraft engines? Yesterday in an exchange at Question Time it seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping indicated that a very small sum of money was being spent on quietening aircraft engines. Is he aware that the American Government have put 40 million dollars for development of the relevant technology at the disposal of the Boeing and Douglas Corporations? I am talking of present jet aircraft. In 1975 effective hush kits will be coming off the production lines for Boeing and Douglas. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will seek out this sort of information in the


review which is to be undertaken? Can we be assured that we shall not find that he is talking to people who are simply giving him the answers that he wants?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Could my hon. Friend tell me the sort of level to which these hush kits reduce the noise of these airliners? Could he compare it with the noise level of the 1011, for instance?

Mr. Adley: The answer is, to meet Federal Aviation Regulation No. 36, with which my hon. Friend is, I am sure, familiar.
I now pass on and deal with what has been done with aircraft at present in service. It seems to me that at the moment the Americans are arranging to make their aircraft quiet, and this does not apply only to aircraft flying in and to the United States. It means most of the aircraft which will be in service on European airlines, whilst we with Tridents, 1–11s, VC-10s and Rolls-Royce Conway-engined 707s appear to be doing nothing in this direction.
What consideration has the Department of Trade and Industry given to the real likelihood of these British aircraft not being allowed to land in Germany? I take that as a random example, as it a country which will shortly be introducing noise restrictions. What is being done to ensure that British airlines which purchase British aircraft will not find themselves penalised? Is it not the case that the airlines will only spend on noise reduction money which they are obliged to spend by Parliament?
I repeat a point which has been made this afternoon and say that we should be considering far more stringent controls on aircraft noise than merely considering Maplin as a means of moving that noise from point A to point B.
I turn now to another point about the report which my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned this afternoon. I have asked him about Rolls-Royce, and I hope that that company will be drawn into the consultations. I also want to know whether my right hon. and learned Friend or any of his Ministers at the Department of the Environment have had direct consultation with the Chairman and Board of British Airways. I ask this because it would be totally unsatisfactory if British

Airways and Rolls-Royce continued to have consultations only with the Department of Trade and Industry when it is the Department of the Environment which is handling the Maplin Development Bill. People have said that we cannot organise our airports policy merely for the benefit of the airlines. I accept this. But British Airways is hardly a bucket shop operator and it is important that the Government Department which is handling the Maplin Bill should have direct consultations with British Airways. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out the difficulties over the way Ministers have tried to present the case for Maplin to hon. Members of the House. This is a bone of contention. I have long felt that we are not getting information, but that we were merely getting answers which were destined, hopefully, to quieten us.
Yesterday I asked the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping what he intended to do about the fact that BOAC—I repeat, BOAC—is not required anywhere in the world to use more than one airport for its scheduled services. In answer to my question about BOAC he said that British Airways already operates from Heathrow and Gatwick. I was aware of that. My question was about BOAC, and I find it annoying to receive an answer to a question I did not ask.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I wish to clarify this point. It is impossible for me to answer a question about BOAC when it no longer exists. If I am asked a question of this sort I must answer it in the context of what BOAC is today; in other words, part of the British Airways Board.

Mr. Adley: I also asked a Question last week about BOAC, to which I was given a Written Answer. This Question was: in how many cities in the world is BOAC required to operate scheduled services into more than one airport? That Question was answered last week, and it referred to BOAC's present operations. I do not wish to pursue the point. If I have not made my point in these few remarks, perhaps I am over-ambitious in my attempts to get straightforward answers to straightforward questions. British Airways is extraordinarily concerned about the present arrangements, and it is foolish for anyone to deny that.
I ask my hon. Friends to ensure that when the report is set up the Department of the Environment will have direct consultation with British Airways. That is not unreasonable. If British Airways is required to move some of its operation to Maplin, will it find it is alone or will the Government try to persuade foreign carriers also to move to Maplin? At present the Government do not have powers to compel TWA or Pan-American to move to Maplin. I ask my hon. Friend to consider what they are doing before they wreck British civil aviation and our national freight carriers, of which we are rightly proud.
I had another Question answered last week. I asked how many airlines had the Government requested to move from Heathrow to Gatwick since Gatwick opened. I was told in the reply that Bulgarian Airlines and Loftleidir had moved to Gatwick, but even these airlines had put on the pressure and were now back at Heathrow. They are hardly the two most important airlines in the world, but they got their own way.
We must be careful about what might happen within a few years, for a great deal of work has gone into building up one of the finest airlines in the world.
Another matter bearing on the report which my right hon. and learned Friend announced today is whether we can be assured that it will incorporate the national airports plan upon which the Civil Aviation Authority is working. This is a factor of real significance. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) spoke about the way in which at last Britain's airlines are beginning to realise that not all their customers live within five miles of Hyde Park Corner. The Chairman of British Airways now estimates that 40 per cent. of his airlines' customers live north of Birmingham. We are seeing a realisation at last by our national carrier that it is necessary no longer to supply services only from London and to drag people from all over the country to South-East England. The French have realised it. The President of Air France made a very interesting speech about it recently. I shall not weary the House with quotations, but in the course of his speech he said that the development of regional services in France in the past five years had shown

a total transformation. The same happened years ago in the United States. It will happen in this country. Services from Newcastle, Birmingham, and Southampton to Marseilles and so on will emerge with our entry into the European Economic Community and the resultant changes in air traffic patterns and traffic rights.
In an intervention earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) suggested that no one would cease to fly to New York from London if Maplin were developed. However, we have heard a great deal today about Professor Large from Southampton University. I happen to have spoken to him several times in the past few days. He lives near Southampton. He tells me that if intercontinental services are transferred from Heathrow to Maplin he will not spend at least three or four hours getting from Southampton to Maplin. Instead he will fly from Eastleigh or Hurn to Paris and pick up another plane there.
8.45 p.m.
I remind the House that there are five times as many people who fly living to the west of London than to the east. We must keep in mind the likely effect on air traffic patterns of a Maplin decision. It is silly to ignore them. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us what consideration has been given to the effect of a Maplin decision on airports like Hurn at Bournemouth and Lulsgate at Bristol and the new traffic which is likely to be generated at those airports. It is inconceivable to take the Maplin decision in isolation from a national airports plan. Incidentally, Bristol people find it strange that they are deprived of resources for an instrument landing system while apparently the South-East is to be provided with yet another expensive airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) spoke of the difficulties of his constituents, and we appreciate them. But it is not just a matter of Dorking or Canterbury. It is Dorking or Liverpool, the Gorbals, Bristol and everywhere else in the country which is deprived of resources to develop its airport as a result of this Maplin decision. Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool. Glasgow and the other great cities of Britain have grown up and thrived on commerce. Effective modern


airports are essential to them, as the British Chambers of Commerce point out in their report.
Another problem which I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider needs to be looked at in the proposed study is the clogged-up state of air traffic control in the English Channel which could result from a Maplin decision.
Another matter which must be considered is bird strike. We have been modest in that we have not over-emphasised the problem of large birds and large jet engines coming together simultaneously. I hope that my hon. Friend will read an article by James Wentworth Day in Country Life the week before last. I speak as one who was recently involved in a forced landing in a Trident at Lisbon Airport. When I reached the ground after a full emergency landing one of the airport officials said to me "We built the airport near the River Tagus. We assumed that the gulls would go away, but they did not."
Another matter to be considered is the GLC's attitude towards Maplin. It is no use the Government thinking that they can build an airport at Maplin and ignore the GLC's attitude towards road and rail communications.
I have gone on far too long—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Adley: I am concerned about Maplin, but I am not pathologically opposed to it. I have said consistently that I should be prepared to accept Maplin if Gatwick and Heathrow were phased out. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking intimated that that was nonsense and that it could not be done. I do not believe that that is right. Heathrow is now handling 257,000 air traffic movements compared with 420,000 at Atlanta Municipal 372,000 at Los Angeles International and 671,000 at Chicago O'Hare.

Sir G. Sinclair: What about capital investment?

Mr. Adley: I think that my hon. Friend will agree—

Sir G. Sinclair: The capital investment and all the work and services surrounding Heathrow and Gatwick will surely not be wiped out in any real world which we can foresee. That was my point.

Mr. Adley: Le Bourget, a substantial airport, will be closed when Roissy Airport is opened. We are looking ahead and considering a 15-year running programme. To release hundreds of acres at Gatwick and Heathrow would be substantial compensation for developing Foulness. The original Foulness concept was of four 19,000 feet runways, which would presumably work round the clock. That would be a considerable advantage of the three runways, two at Heathrow and one at Gatwick, which operate during daylight hours. It is a proposition which could bear serious study taken, as it should be, with the development of regional airports.
The debate which will follow the completion of the new report is the time for final decisions to be taken. Today is not a day for blood-letting. As my hon. Friend indicated to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), there is a certain oddness about determining entirely one's attitude after having just been told that there is to be a substantial report as a result of representations which have been made and actions taken in Parliament. If I am assured that there will not be an hour and a half's Prayer on a negative resolution but that we shall have a full day's debate, that would set my mind at rest after hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).

Mr. Atkinson: What the hon. Gentleman's Ministers are not saying is that when the report is debated they are likely to go back on the original decision. There will be no change. Let us not be under any misapprehension.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusions. I have long believed that Maplin, taken by itself, can turn out to be a massive investment in the past. I hope that the report which we have been told about today will be thorough, open and honest, and will enable a well-informed final decision to be made. I end with the plea that the report should be led by an independent chairman.

Dr. Glyn: I find it hard to resist making a long speech on this subject, since my constituency is one of the worst affected by aircraft noise. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that have been


advanced on previous occasions. I shall confine myself to one or two important points.
It is clear that the level of noise in and around London Airport has now become intolerable. Furthermore, a new factor has arisen—namely, that we have recently had two serious accidents at Heathrow. The first was the Trident disaster and the second was the incident when a Jumbo jet nearly took the roof off one of the girls high school in my constituency. These two factors prove conclusively that an inland airport is not only dangerous but causes an unreasonable amount of noise to the 2 million people who live in and around it.
One of the objections which have been canvassed to the Maplin project concerns its distance from London. I do not believe that this matter is of cardinal importance, for it already takes a considerable time to get from central London to London Airport. Even with the extension of the Underground system to Heathrow there will still be considerable difficulties with the carriage of luggage. It might even be necessary to open an entirely new road from London to Heathrow if Heathrow expands, as it will have to do if a third airport is not constructed. In terms of Maplin, there are opportunities to build both new roads and reconstruct major railways which could reduce the travel time from London to Maplin to almost exactly the same time as it now takes to get from Heathrow to central London. Therefore, the argument about distance is a red herring. In the modern transport world there is a chance that we shall develop some new ideas which will ease the situation. It is surely easier to construct a fast railway along the two existing railway tracks than to pull down houses to construct a road.
Another argument that has been canvassed—and this is a quite reasonable one—is that considerable noise reduction will follow from the introduction of hush kits on aircraft. I believe that this will involve a number of difficulties. How shall we force foreign airlines to adopt these kits? They may say, "We shall not agree to do so, but instead will land at Paris, where there are no restrictions." Therefore, the noise levels will continue

to cause inconvenience to people who live in and around the airport.
I turn to the question of expenditure. In the next decade or so aircraft movements are bound to increase, and one or other of our airports will have to be expanded at considerable cost. Therefore, expenditure at Maplin cannot be regarded in isolation. The Maplin scheme also has the advantage that the financing will be carried out on an annual basis, and a sum as large as £1,000 million, or whatever the figure may be, will not need to be found in one lump sum.
What are the alternatives to Maplin? One possibility is to increase the size of London Airport and also Gatwick, to keep Stansted in operation and to perpetuate problems which at the moment are unbearable. I was interested to hear the Labour Party declare its policy. As I understand it, a future Labour Government would be committed to discontinuing the Maplin project. This is something which the country at large wants to know. I think it can also be said that, so far as one can understand, the Liberals intend to discontinue Maplin. Therefore, both Opposition parties are firmly pledged to oppose the construction of Maplin.
One of the important things that came from the debate was that the Government have accepted that the decision should be a parliamentary one. I should like a clarification. My right hon. and learned Friend was kind enough to give me some clarification but, as I understand it, there will be two stages. One will be a resolution. I shall not say whether it might he negative or affirmative, as that has already been dealt with, but this resolution will be debated, and then special bits, such as roads and railways, will have to be debated separately, because they involve many other factors and authorities.
I should appreciate clarification when my hon. Friend concludes the debate, because all sections of the House have been concerned about the procedure. I am sure that there will be adequate time for debate but it would be a help to the House if he would be kind enough to say something about the exact procedure—whether there will be one debate and subsequent resolutions laid on the Table.
I believe the opportunities which present themselves at Maplin to be unrivalled. If we build a deep sea port and have super lines of communication between Maplin and London, we can rival any airport or seaport on the Continent.
It may mean other airports being run down and other seaports suffering, but in the long term this country will be equipped with something that no one else has—a large and efficient air terminal combined with a seaport, and that can only be to the advantage of our country. There are many other aspects I should like to have dwelt upon, but we have to face that, if we do not go ahead with the project, we shall have the inevitable decision about increasing the number of flights from London Airport and other airports, which would be unacceptable.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will press forward. I fully understand that the two years which have been added may be necessary and that this has not been done because the Minister wishes to delay his decision. I ask the Government to proceed as rapidly as possible. It is a hope to those of our constituents who realise that it may be some years before they get relief, but it is a light at the end of the tunnel for which so many of them for whom I have the honour to speak look forward.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I have always thought that the main argument in favour of Maplin was an environmental one. It surprised me to learn the positiveness of the declaration of the Opposition that they will kill Maplin like a dead duck soon after the election, if they win it. This has been asserted by the spokesman for the Liberal Party as well.
The attraction of that argument, such as it is, is that there might be a considerable saving in public expenditure. I am not one of those who have been keen about increasing public expenditure, but I am absolutely in favour of the Bill and of the development of Maplin. The public expenditure argument needs close examination. I hope that that will be given by my right hon. and learned Friend during the survey which is being undertaken and which we have been told will be available in March.
A good deal of further news has come forth since our previous discussion on Maplin in June and July. I am sure more will come out. But the main point which will emerge very strongly, I believe, is the cost of alternative works which will have to be undertaken if Maplin is not proceeded with. It is difficult to get any precise idea of what these costs will amount to but it is certain that, if Maplin does not go ahead, one would have to think in terms of the development of Stansted, Luton and a massive development at Heathrow, and particularly Gatwick, with which I am more than somewhat concerned.
The West Sussex County Council has done a good deal of work on projections about the extra facilities that it will have to provide and the extra work that it will have to undertake if Maplin is not proceeded with. I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of these matters because I believe that the cost of developing the airports and all the infrastructure that would be required if Maplin were not proceeded with would actually exceed the present estimated cost of Maplin. I cannot say for certain; nobody can; but I can give one or two reasons why I believe that this would be so, at any rate in relation to Gatwick.
9.0 p.m.
In the first place, the present estimates are that by 1980 at Gatwick the passenger throughput will increase from about 5 million to 17 million. If Maplin were not proceeded with—and if this amendment were carried it would delay for a further two years the construction of Maplin—it seems certain that the figure of 17 million would reach 32 million, which is the present limit for one runway at Gatwick. Nobody can say for certain what would then be required by way of development of the other airports, but if a second runway at Gatwick were to be required—and it seems altogether likely—it would mean a throughput of about 57 million passengers a year, and that would mean a massive extra expenditure on airport facilities.
Let me give some indication of that. It would mean that the present airfield would increase from about 1,500 acres to 4,500, or more than seven square miles. As the House will know, the M23, the main London to Brighton road, is at


present under construction. West Sussex County Council's estimates are that a second motorway altogether would have to be constructed if Gatwick had to be provided with a second runway. Further to that, the rail link between London and Gatwick would have to be considerably expanded. Not only would there be the cost of the railway at Gatwick; it would be necessary to devise a completely new rail system on the exits from London, which now suffer from considerable bottlenecks.
That, of course, is dealing merely with the cost to the immediate environment of Gatwick itself, but the cost to the county councils and the other local authorities would be even more severe. It is estimated that if a second runway were to be built the airport work force at Gatwick would amount to about 70.000 people, there being now about 11,000.
The Gatwick, Crawley and Holley area is already designated as a growth area, and the estimates are that the population will increase, without any extra addition. to about 200,000 people—by natural growth alone. If the work force at Gatwick were to amount to about 70,000 people it would mean that an additional 180,000 people would have to be accommodated. Unfortunately, there are considerable difficulties about housing these people in the area of Surrey and East Sussex, partly for green belt reasons and partly for other reasons such as drainage. It is almost certain, therefore, that the larger part of this extra population—the 180,000 extra, in addition to the 200,000—would have to be housed in West Sussex. What that would do to the environment of West Sussex is literally unimaginable, but it would completely destroy the countryside as we know it. Land in West Sussex is, I would think, now the most expensive of any in any part of the country. The cost of that would be simply phenomenal.
I turn to one other matter. This would take place on the very doorstep of Crawley new town, in my constituency, and it would mean that industrial firms there would be competing for precisely the same labour force as that required by Gatwick Airport. There is an extraordinary shortage of labour in Crawley, and there has been for some time past. It would be impossible to imagine that

the industrial expansion which Crawley has had in the past few years would continue. Many industrial firms would be forced to consider leaving the constituency altogether and going to other parts of the country. The natural development of one of the oldest new towns in the country would be stunted if Maplin were not proceeded with. That is an important point, which I ask hon. Members opposite to consider. The people of Crawley will be most interested to know that it is the policy of the Labour Party to cut down the development of Crawley, and I shall have something to do with telling them.
In this debate much has been said about the environment and particularly about noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has already said that the noise level is intolerable. All I add is that, on the present estimates, if Maplin were not proceeded with it would mean Gatwick having to continue with night flights, from which we particularly suffer—and not only that; the amount of traffic from Gatwick and from Heathrow would mean that in the height of the summer there would be flights over the heads of my constituents every one and a half minutes.
The House will not be surprised to learn, therefore, that I hope that the amendment to the Lords amendment will not be carried.

Mr. Warren: I hope that my own Front Bench will forgive me if I start and end with a criticism, as I was one of the loyal supporters of Maplin the last time I spoke in the House. It seemed to me yesterday that Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry clearly showed, on the subject of engine silencing, that they still have not appreciated the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done before the public's expectations can possibly be met.
Much more money has to be spent in this area, and, from some of the statistics which have been bandied about tonight—for instance, those put forward by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield)—it is clear that there are many misleading reports about the ability of aero-engine manufacturers to silence engines to the level that the public would find acceptable.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton postulated a sum—I am sorry he is not here to correct me if I misheard him—which implied that an engine noise reduction of 75 per cent. could be achieved on the Spey engines now in service. This is quite impossible. No way is known even to achieve a 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. reduction. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) is away at the moment, because he has obviously spent a happy recess being brain-washed by American engine manufacturers as to what they can achieve. What he specified is nothing better than Rolls-Royce is already achieving on the engines delivered to the Rolls-Royce TriStars being sold in the United States.
It is a great shame that so many opponents of Maplin are tending to mislead the public into believing that the problem of engine noise can be conquered before Maplin is opened. I believe that this leads us away from the main problem which faces the whole of the South-East of England—not just the noise but the total traffic flying in the skies.
A recent survey taken on the departure and terminal destinations of passengers using Heathrow showed that 85 per cent. started from, or were destined for, places in South-East England. We must be clear that we are talking about an extra airport for South-East England. We should not confuse this with another need in this country, for a national regional airport policy. The two things are separate, but we must proceed on both together to find solutions to both at the same time.
I should like the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry to get together with a sense of urgency to look at the question of regional airports, so that we can filter out the continuing belief in so many people's minds, ever since the time of Roskill, that it is not a South-East England airport that is needed but that we are really talking about an airport related to the whole country.
Opponents of Maplin do not tell us where the passengers and the flights will go, building up over the years, if they are not allowed to land in the London area. In the last 20 years, there has

been an average compound rate increase of 12 per cent. per annum in the number of passengers and flights operating into this country.
The solution proffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), that passengers should go to Paris if they want to fly the Atlantic, should be taken up at this stage. My hon. Friend postulated-I referred to the Channel Tunnel White Paper to find out—that if somebody wanted to fly the Atlantic in 1982 in a Concorde he should go from London to Paris. According to the White Paper, that would take 3 hours 40 minutes by rail. He would then go from Paris to Roissy-en-France, which would take another hour, making 4 hours 40 minutes. He would then be invited to embark on a Concorde, taking 3 hours 40 minutes to reach Kennedy. This really does not make sense.
We should keep in mind that if a passenger wishes to travel by air it is right that he should travel to a reasonable place—from the public's point of view —in order to do so. It is not sensible that he should have to travel for 3 hours 40 minutes to a foreign country in order to get his aircraft.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East is not here, as I should have liked to take up a point he made. Everybody wants to put air transportation services somewhere else, and I wondered whether this applied to the airport of Hun, in the new constituency of Lymington.
I turn to the very important political statement made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). He told us that within a few days of being elected the Labour Party would kill Maplin. He gave a warning that all contractors who had started on the project would have their contracts broken. He advised me that my questions on the subject should be directed at members of the Labour Front Bench, who would answer them.
There are three questions which come out of this debate to which we must have answers from the Opposition tonight. First, has Labour's policy the backing of the Trades Union Congress? Secondly, what compensation would be offered to the contractors and their workers for lost work and lost jobs? Thirdly, is this


policy accepted by all trade-union sponsored Labour Members of Parliament?
Lastly, I say to all the opponents of Maplin who want to hide their heads in the sand there, believing that the problem will go away if they do not look at it, that they should take more time to analyse the data available on the problem facing the South-East of England in its demand for air transportation. The statistics given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) clearly show that we must have a better explanation from the Government of what they are about in pursuing the case for Maplin.
I do not believe that the general public has yet understood or felt the demand for Maplin, which must be brought out. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry have a duty to show that there has been no change in the three years since the Roskill Commission concluded its hearings, although there may have been a change in phasing and rate of build-up, and so on.
With continuously decreasing air fare structures, the Government may say that they must accelerate Maplin. However, the object must be to provide a better airport service in South-East England, and I commend the Government to move a little faster with the job.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that there is a great deal of wishful thinking in the search for a solution to the vexed problem of aircraft noise in the South-East. It is easy to say that one can cure it by producing quieter aircraft. I have a little experience of quieter aircraft because the RB211 is the quietest engine in the world and flies over my constituency in the TriStar. I regret to have to tell the House that, while it is more silent than the other type, it still gives rise to complaints. We must not think that it is so silent that it whispers along and nobody notices it.
There are complaints about the TriStar, not in the volume that we receive about the BAC1–11 with its noisy Spey engines, but it is noisy and it disturbs people. Some people say, "Spend only £60 million on the Spey engines and they will be almost as quiet as the RB211 ".
That is not good enough. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not an easy solution, to spend a little more money—£200 million—and then get quiet aircraft. It cannot be done—certainly not in the time scale we are considering.
Many opponents of Maplin have vested interests. We have heard of examples among the airlines. It is regrettable that when airlines inform the public, they do not declare their interest. People quote them, saying that if British airlines do not want to move to Maplin, that must be conclusive. Of course, they do not want to move because it will cost them money.
The same applies to other interests. Hotels, for example, at Heathrow do not want to see any reduction in traffic. They, equally, must oppose Maplin. I think that the Government could help here. I am not aware that the Government have given any indication to the airlines of who is to pay for the cost of moving.
A levy on passengers will not be the answer. If a levy is put on all passengers passing through Maplin by way of higher fares in order to recompense the airlines for the cost of moving, this will be counter-productive and drive traffic away to Continental airports. I urge the Government to say what they will do to compensate the airlines for having to move to Maplin. If they do so, perhaps some of the objections put forward by the airlines will be put forward less violently.

Mr. Crouch: It is a question not of where British airlines fly from—they could fly from many airports in the United Kingdom—but of where they have their maintenance, engineering and administrative base. I am advised that it would cost them several hundred millions of pounds to move from their base at Heathrow and clearly that is a charge which would have to be taken up by the Government.

Mr. Allson: That is precisely what I mean. It is worrying airlines wherever they may be based—Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton. But now we have significant figures for the growth that would take place if Maplin were called off. Heathrow, for example, would at least double in size. Consequently, additional facilities which the Government need not pay for will have to be installed anyway by


the airlines. Suppose that Heathrow's capacity increased from 20 million to 40 million or 50 million passengers a year, Gatwick's from 5 million to 25 million or 35 million passengers a year, and Luton's, Stansted's and Southend's together from 3 million to 35 million passengers a year. In relation to those increases—and they are what is necessary if Maplin is called off—we are told by the Labour Party that Maplin will not be built. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is not here, because I should like to quote him on Luton. He said that "noise at Luton is now intolerable", and he gave a pledge about what the Labour Party intended to do. He said that "there should be no indefinite expansion of traffic from Luton", whatever that may mean.
How on earth will it be possible, at Luton, to have any sort of reduction of traffic, or lack of expansion of traffic, in the light of those figures? Does the Labour Party intend that a third London airport should be built at Stansted to take figures equivalent to Heathrow or Gatwick? It is clear that unless Maplin is built, Luton will have to expand, and that is my extreme fear. That is what the Labour Party will not face, nor will the Liberals.
I give the House my alternative, and this is what will happen if Maplin is not built. I believe that the people of the South-East of England will revolt. They will not accept an increase in traffic of the order that I have just indicated—doubling or trebling. It would be an intolerable increase. Therefore, there will have to be the most severe restrictions on traffic in the South-East. It will have to be a matter of priority passengers flying from South-East airports to destinations outside the central land mass of Europe. If passengers want to go to Europe, they will have to go by other ways, perhaps by the Channel Tunnel. There should be no night flights at all, and there should be no charter holiday flights. Those who wish them will have to leave from airports outside the South-East.
In those circumstances, I visualise an extreme cutting down on air travel from the South-East and some reasonable respite for the people of Britain. We must face the fact that that is the alter-

native if we do not have Maplin. There is no easy option over this.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I apologise for not being able to attend the whole of the debate. I shall not take up the time of the House for more than three minutes.
I am prompted to rise because of a remark made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope). The hon. Gentleman spoke of what he called "a dwindling band of support" for the Maplin project, and it is here that the record must be put straight. At the end of the previous Session, a number of us who were concerned at the mounting opposition to this project-which seemed to many of us to be based on misinformation and misconcept—formed a group which is now actively supported by the West Sussex County Council, the East Sussex County Council, the Surrey County Council, the Hertfordshire County Council, a number of London boroughs, amenity associations from Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Noise Council, among other organisations.
Together, those authorities and organisations represent the interests of literally millions of people. This is not a dwindling band. This is a steadily swelling band of people who are increasingly and deeply concerned at the prospect of any further delay to this project. The House and the country should know that.
A number of these organisations and authorities are engaged in deep studies of the consequences of abandoning the Maplin project. I hope and believe with confidence that they will be able to contribute to the inquiry announced by the Minister this afternoon and that they will confirm the remark by the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, Mr. Foulkes, when he spoke of the hideous alternative that we shall face if a third London airport is not built at Maplin.
We have heard descriptions of this from a number of my hon. Friends. We all know something of the congestion that would inevitably occur, the night flying that would increase, and the planning considerations that would mean accommodation for between 60,000 and 70,000 more people near Stansted; between 20,000 and 25,000 near Heathrow;


between 25,000 and 30,000 near Luton, and at least 150,000, as my hon. Friends have said, near Gatwick. This is simply not on, and for the Labour Party and the Opposition to speak of abandoning the project without admitting that those would be the inevitable consequences, and without a word as to how they would cope with them, is simply bogus.
The amendment asks for more time. Surely, the House remembers that we have now been studying this problem for nearly 20 years. Is that not long enough? How much time do we need? I earnestly hope, on behalf of all those represented in the organisations that I have mentioned, that my hon. Friend will press on with this project with all speed and give us that assurance this evening.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widness): First, let us be clear that we on this side of the House do not wish the Bill to proceed at all. We had hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech on 12th September, when he spoke of a delay of two years, might have been the harbinger of the Bill either dying unmourned in the recess or perishing in some way in the corridors between this House and the other place.
The Government have brought the Bill back today. They are persisting with the Maplin project, despite the arguments not only from this side and many of their hon. Friends but from very many informed bodies and the whole of the aircraft industry. Not one of them give definite favour to the Maplin project.
It has been said that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is a wrecking amendment. I do not think that it is, but I wish that it were. All the amendment says is that there shall be no carrying out of work for a period of two years.
The Secretary of State, when replying to his hon. Friend's arguments, seemed to imply that for two years there would be a complete moratorium on planning. That is not my idea, and I am certain that it is not the hon. Gentleman's idea. I think it reasonable to say that for two years no actual works should be carried out on the project to give at least 24 months' thinking time to the Government, to the Civil Service Departments and to this House to look at all the aspects of

the situation, so many of which have been discussed tonight.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be making concessions. His hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that he seemed to speak both for and against Maplin. Let us be clear that any agreement by the Government has been reached because they have been literally beaten into submission on these matters. In the first instance, on Report, against the advice of the Whips, a clause was passed by the House that required the Government to listen to various statutory bodies before proceeding. That was not the Government's idea. It was the idea of the House, and it was vigorously opposed by the Under-Secretary and by the Government.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent the record. I said in the House, with the authority of the Secretary of State, that the Government accepted the spirit of what the House proposed. We had difficulties over the form, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is wrong to suggest that the Government vigorously resisted. On the contrary, we did not.

Mr. Oakes: There was a Division. If the Government accepted the spirit of the proposal, one would not imagine that they would have gone to such lengths as they did to divide the House. That was not the end of it. In the other place, an amendment was put forward by the Earl of Perth to include the National Ports Council among those bodies. That amendment was resisted by the Government. But they were beaten in the other place, so now they accept it.
Another amendment put forward in the other place suggested that the Government must consider the effects of the proposed development on the regions. The Government won that vote in the other place by 88 to 86—a majority of 2—in a House where one imagines the Government Whips would have a completely free rein. So that was a moral defeat which was then accepted by the Government.
The Secretary of State came to the House today and, almost as the paragon of virtue, said that he was acceding to the wishes of the House. However, that was because the Opposition or the other


place have obtained the inclusion of provisions within the Bill that required him so to do.
The hon. Member for Tiverton made a most interesting speech in favour of the House of Commons rather than in favour of or against Maplin. He was in favour of this House having the right to debate fully the various reports which may come forward.
I thought that the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping was somewhat unkind to his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton when he had the temerity to suggest that he ought to have put down an amendment to take out the negative procedure. I remind the Minister that the Lords Amendments were printed only yesterday and that even our amendments on this matter are starred amendments, so there was very little chance, in view of the haste with which the Government are proceeding, for any hon. Member to put down an amendment of the kind that the hon. Gentleman clearly had in mind and would have been a valuable addition to the Bill. If the Secretary of State is right and is honest with the House when he says that eventually the whole matter will be debated in full, why is not the affirmative procedure laid down, if necessary, by a Government amendment? This is a Government amendment in the other place, so why put the negative procedure in in the first place?
Many hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be in doubt—I know not why—about the Opposition attitude to Maplin. I will repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, what my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) clearly spelled out to the House this afternoon. In principle, we are opposed to Maplin. We are opposed to it on a number of grounds. If a Labour Government are elected during the next two years, as I feel certain they will be, the Maplin project will not proceed.
There are a number of grounds for saying that. The first argument has been mentioned, though not sufficiently. I refer to the regional argument. This is a complete reversal of the policy of successive Governments in ensuring that development and assistance for development goes not to the overcrowded South-East but to the development areas.
What have we got this week? As a Merseyside Member, may I remind the House of what Members from that development area face in the business of the House this week. Today we are discussing not merely an airport, but a seaport that hon. Gentlemen opposite have described as a rival to Rotterdam—it is of that size—and a city in the South-East region that will eventually be the size of Hull.
Tomorrow the House will be debating cane sugar. The biggest worry in that debate for most hon. Members from the North-West and Scotland is that refineries in the development areas may close because of Government policy with the EEC.
On Thursday we are to discuss the Channel Tunnel—another massive South-East project. This is a complete reversal of the policy of successive Governments in trying to give aid to the regions.
I am sorry that in this debate—the same thing happened in the last debate-we should over-emphasise the discussion, important though it is, on the airport. I remind the House that in addition to the airport we are considering a massive seaport, and that, in my opinion, can only result in drawing trade away from such ports as Liverpool, which has already slipped from second to third place behind Southampton in the United Kingdom. It will also draw trade away from the Scottish ports and the development areas. In fact, it is intended to have such purpose.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend seems to be enunciating a new proposition. When we were in Government we were not opposed to a third London Airport. True, my right hon. Friend has always opposed Maplin, but my hon. Friend is enunciating a new proposition if he is suggesting that we are opposed to a third London airport as such. That has never been our position, and I hope it will never be our position.

Mr. Oakes: What I was talking about was the effect on the regions. But on the question of the airports, may I say to my hon. Friend that we must take account of the increasing volume of scientific information, particularly over the past 12 months. Aircraft can be made quieter if money is spent on them—and I shall go into that point later—


the flight paths of aircraft and the arrangement of air traffic can be improved, and in the light of that information it is not essential that a third London airport be created. But I shall enlarge my arguments on that aspect at a later stage.
On the question of the seaport, much more consideration ought to have been given by this House to one of the major developments in the economy of this country, which can have nothing but disastrous effects not only upon the region of my hon. Friend but upon the regions of hon. Members on both sides—in Scotland, Wales and the North-East. I refer to the development of a new town and a new seaport at Maplin.

Mr, R. C. Mitchell: It is not only a question of regions; it is also a simple question of bad economics. Is my hon. Friend aware of the speech of Sir Humphrey Browne, the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, on 11th June, who said that all the container facilities planned at Maplin could go to Southampton at a cost of only £10 million, because we already have the land and the infrastructure?

Mr. Oakes: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). That is true of Southampton, and it is also true of Liverpool, where vast sums of money have been poured into developments which, presumably, will become redundant to a large extent if this other vast sum of money is spent on Maplin Airport.
May I now mention another matter to which insufficient consideration has been given during this debate, although it was dealt with by the hon. Member the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope), and by one of my hon. Friends; that is, the question of oil. Is it not fatuous that, when every hon. Member talking to a constituent is invariably asked whether petrol rationing is to be introduced, and when we are worried about the future of oil fuel in this country, we are talking about a massive airport at Maplin as well as a massive oil refinery there. The oil refinery is something that will not be in existence until the 1980s, and yet the Government confidently predict that during the 1980s we shall get

most of our oil supplies from the North Sea. They will not come into Maplin because they will come in by pipe, and all the other supplies of heavier Middle Eastern oils can come into the country through the existing western ports, including the Anglesey oil terminal which this House debated only last year. So we are going to build a massive oil refinery on the east coast, in the worst possible place to attract huge oil tankers along the Channel and over the Goodwin Sands. But, worst of all, it may not be needed at all, because our oil supplies will not be coming in bulk tankers during the late 1980s if the Government's forecasts about North Sea oil are correct.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentle-many, who took part in the Standing Committee proceedings on this Bill, knows full well that the Government have expressely said that there will not be an oil refinery or a petro-chemical works at Maplin.

Mr. Oakes: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman for using the word "refinery". What I meant to say was "oil terminal". An oil terminal is certainly intended at Maplin, and the arguments which I have been advancing apply with much greater force to an oil terminal than to an oil refinery.
I come to the question of aircraft noise, because that is bound up with oil and fuel. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)—I appreciate his concern—the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) have been worried about the noise of overflying aircraft which drive their constituents virtually insane. I wish that Maplin would have an effect upon that. The difficulty is that in the 1980s their astonished constituents will find that Maplin has done nothing whatever to help them. What would help those people in Heathrow, Gatwick, Speke and Manchester, and, indeed, in the world's airports, would be quieter aeroplanes. We are talking about an airport which will come into being in 1982. We are, therefore, talking in the first instance about the 1980s and then the 1990s. I do not think most constituents would care how many aeroplanes went into or out of an airport if they went silently It is the noise which is the problem.

Mr. Jessel: Mr. Jessel rose—

Mr. Oakes: No, I cannot give way now. What we are suggesting is that if a fraction of the expenditure on Maplin were applied to making aircraft quieter, not just with hush kits but with newly designed aircraft, we would give relief not only to the people of London but to people in the whole of the country, and this would contribute to a solution of an environmental problem the world over.
May I remind the Minister of his reply to a question which was asked in the House yesterday twice by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). He asked:
Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Government are spending on research and development of quieter aircraft engines?
He did not get a reply the first time he asked the question, so he persisted and asked it again. The Minister's reply was:
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the costs of the RB211 engine are running very high. That, in itself, is sufficient answer.
It is not. We want to know how much. The Minister went on to say:
The Dowty Rotal experiment is, again, costing over £2 million."[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 679.]
Maplin is costing probably over £1,000 million and is not contributing in any way to quieter aircraft, whether in the South-East or in the whole of the country.
I will mention briefly the two amendments standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, one relating to the access routes and the other relating to the Channel Tunnel. As to the access routes, again there has been completely insufficient debate on this vitally important problem of the whole of the South-East of England. The reports which were produced to Members of the House by the Government came out, I think, the day before the Committee stage in another place, so that the other place did not have an adequate opportunity to discuss them. Neither the Select Committee of this House nor the Select Committee in another place had seen them. The Standing Committee had no opportunity to discuss them. The first opportunity to mention them has been in this debate today on the Lords Amendments.
It is important that we consider these access routes. A questionnaire was sent out by the Government to people in south-east Essex—I give them credit for that—asking which of six routes they preferred. I do not know the number of replies, but I gather that it was not up to expectations. From a private conversation that I had with the Under-Secretary, I gather that the Department expected more replies. I am not surprised that the Government did not get more replies. It is rather like a man in court being asked "Do you want a sentence of imprisonment, or a fine, or probation?" when the man wants to plead not guilty. Most of the people in this area are entirely against Maplin and are, therefore, not concerned with which of the six routes to an airport which they do not want is the preferable route. Let us look at the routes, which we have not discussed in any detail, but which must be of concern to hon. Members on all sides who represent constituencies in Essex and the South-East.
9.45 p.m.
The first and most important consideration is that none of these projected routes extends to London. They stop 12 miles outside London. Can the Government imagine what road congestion would be lie within London, and getting out of the city, if motorway or rail links terminate 12 miles outside the capital?
Another matter which has not been discussed in any detail, but which was referred to in some detail in an excellent report by the London Chamber of Commerce, relates to inter-airport travel. Under the present travel proposals there are no adequate arrangements for travel between Heathrow and Maplin, or between Gatwick and Maplin. Passengers would have to come out of Heathrow or Gatwick, travel to London, make their way across London and then join the railway link to Maplin.
The hon. Members for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and Canterbury are right in what they say about this. As continental travel develops from regional airports—not only from Southampton airport, but also from Liverpool and Manchester airports—I should probably prefer to fly from Paris to Brussels by a connecting flight rather than on a flight to Heathrow from Speke airport, and then have to get from Heathrow into London


and from London to Maplin, which is what is proposed under the access routes.
Much more discussion is needed about access routes. The Secretary of State said that he would accept and include these matters although he was not in favour of the amendments. That is precisely what was said in another place about the ports amendment, and precisely what he said to his hon. Friend who was successful in getting this House to accept a new Clause on Report.
Access is a vital matter which must not be left to chance. It must be included with those other considerations of which the House must take cognisance when it is deciding whether Maplin is to proceed.
What I have said about access routes applies with even more force to the Channel Tunnel. There has been hardly any discussion on the Channel Tunnel in relation to Maplin. I will not go into it at length because an opportunity for discussing the Channel Tunnel will arise on Thursday.
However, there is muddle and incompetence in Government thinking over these two projects in the overcrowded South-East region. Both projects are at the expense of the rest of the British Isles.
Therefore, I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote, and I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury presses his amendment. If he does not, we wish to vote on it because we think it is a good amendment. It proposes to defer all construction work for a period of two years to give the House, and the Government, the chance to think clearly about the future, and about what they are doing.
I ask my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to put this safeguard in the Bill so that the access routes and the Channel Tunnel must be considered by the Secretary of State before deciding upon the future for this project.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a very involved and complicated subject, but the two points of clarification emerging from the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) are that the Labour Party is opposed to Maplin and will not proceed with it, and that it wishes to build the Channel Tunnel in some other part of England than the South-East.
I was surprised to hear the way in which a few vague assurances about quieter aircraft and the opportunities for changing flight paths in the South-East of England justified the view, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, that we should not proceed with Maplin. I assume that we, can draw only one conclusion. It is that regardless of the further work that the Government believe to be necessary to satisfy the House, the Labour Party has decided that it is to be expansion for Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and even Stansted on a vastly increased scale. I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in his place. He must remember many of the bitter arguments that we had when he was responsible for trying to put additional traffic into Stansted. Here we are, once again moving along that dreary path.
Everyone accepts that a massive growth in air traffic is coming. No one seriously disputes that, although we may argue about the rate at which it will come. Whether we argue for 1985, 1990 or 1975, looking forward for the rest of the century, the South-East has a massive problem in terms of air movements and numbers of passengers, and it would be irresponsible for anyone facing the great uncertainties of the future to decide tonight to abandon the proposal to put the third London airport at Maplin.
There are those who argue that we should give priority to the regions. They are right in that, but they ignore the amount of regional support already being given which today is running at record levels. The fact is that there exists considerable capacity at airports in the regions. It would be possible for services to appear now, if anyone wished to apply for licences to operate them, and to operate frequencies of the kind that we are told would be provided if the third London airport were not built. The only alternative, however, is some form of direction of people from the South-East of England to airports throughout the country. As it is obvious that the services are not appearing at present, and that there is no indication that they will appear on the scale anticipated by the Opposition, the only way would he some form of direction.
I do not believe that anyone who has seen the origin and destination surveys of people using the airports of the South-East, and who is aware that some 83 per cent. of those travelling through the airports of the South-East have either their origin or destination in the South-East, can seriously believe that a significant part of the traffic, over and above what we have taken into the calculations already, can be directed to regional airports.
Perhaps I might make one point of detail touching on the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes. He spoke of the communications links stopping 12 miles outside London. In fact the rail link is planned to go to Kings Cross. The road link is a matter for the Government as far as the GLC boundaries, and from there it is a matter for the GLC to work out in the London area. I do not believe that anyone suggests that the GLC will fail to discharge its duties in that respect.

Mr. Douglas Jay: But what are the Government's proposals for the road link? Can the hon. Gentleman say where it should end and how people are to get into central London?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware as I am that it is a matter for the GLC to determine the road pattern within London. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be the first to complain if the Government were to seek to usurp the powers of the GLC to plan the road pattern of London. Where the Government are responsible for the communication links, the plans are well known and clear. The rail link will come from Maplin into the centre of London at Kings Cross.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that a number of factors have changed substantially during the course of the dialogue which has gone on on this matter. He said that the principal changes were concerned with noise. He quoted a number of reports, either journalistic reports or reports which which are supposed to have been sent to my Department, which have not been published and which have been suppressed by my Department. The right hon. Gentleman said that all these reports

supported the general argument which he has put forward. He said that noise was the principal argument now left for the Maplin project.
I must say that that is not the case. Noise is, of course, an important part, and always has been, of the argument for going to Maplin. However, we have heard enough in the debate, if we needed reminding of it, to know that it is far from being the only argument. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) have indicated as clearly as possible the problems which they know would exist if it were decided that Gatwick, for example, must contain the sort of increased traffic which would be necessary if we changed the present policy of restricted planning at Gatwick. The congestion, and the environmental pressure arising out of providing the infrastructure around existing airports are other arguments for going to the coastal site of Maplin. There is already a relationship between this problem and the South-East Joint Planning Study Report, showing a development in the area which could be done in partnership with the development of a third London Airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) referred to the safety argument, which cannot be ignored. It is not true to say that noise is the only factor. It is an important factor, but not by any means the only one. It would have been reasonable for the right hon. Member for Grimsby to have quoted other reports; for example, the report of the Noise Advisory Council would contradict some of the evidence which he put forward about noise.
I hope that the House will accept what I am about to say in addition to the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are now in the process of preparing a report for Parliament which will include all the latest views which they have been able to collect about noise. The arguments put forward by Professor Flowerdew and Professor Walters and the techniques which have been suggested in one or two other reports which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will be considered and dealt with in the Government report. They will either be adopted, or


if not, the reasons why we did not use them will be dealt with in the report.
When we produce the report we shall deal with all the latest views. Following consultation with the organisations which are deeply involved, such as the Civil Aviation Authority, we will publish our views on the latest noise implications for Heathrow and Gatwick, with and without Maplin. It will then be possible for the House to reach its own conclusion about whether the noise argument has been exaggerated. I believe that it will be seen that we have not exaggerated the situation.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby might expect me to confirm that there has been no report from the NGTE at Pyestock which has been suppressed. Such a suggestion arose out of a newspaper article. I must also make it clear, however, that my Department is in constant touch with the establishment at Pyestock. There is a flow of information going both ways. But to suggest that there has been a report which has been suppressed is not the case. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance, as the House of Lords accepted the assurance given last week by my right hon. Friend the Lord Drumalbyn.
Even if we build Maplin and have a third London airport on a coastal site, that will not be the end of the noise problem. It will be important for us to indicate in our report the areas within which more can be done. In addition to those areas hon. Members will welcome the moves which are now being made. We have intensified the noise insulation grant scheme at Heathrow. We have introduced a similar scheme recently at Gatwick. I say with pride—I am not in any way ashamed—that we have now spent or committed some £190 million on the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine. The technology which we have thereby learned, about quietening engines, has been extremely valuable.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Consideration of Lords Amend ments to the Maplin Development Bill, the Powers of Criminal Courts Bill [Lords], the consideration of any Amendments which may be received from the Lords to the Government Trading Funds Bill, and the Motion relating to the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL

Question again proposed, That the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment be made.

Mr. Heseltine: I was dealing with the amount of work that is being undertaken in the noise area. The whole House is concerned, as are we in government, that this work should continue. I wish to add to what was said in Question Time yesterday on the noise standards as they apply to the ICAO Annexe 16. Although I cannot make any commitment about the outcome, we are actively considering the extent to which it would be practical to take into account the attitudes of other countries to require more aircraft types using our airports to comply with the noise standards in Annexe 16 of the Chicago Convention. This is in keeping with the part we have played and are playing in ICAO in the study of the complex international problem of seeking to quieten older types of aircraft.

Mr. Crosland: Could the Minister give some idea of how much money the Government are now spending in encouraging the development of hush kits for the Spey engine? Since we know that the Spey engine is the worst offender in the Trident and BAC111, may we be told how much the Government are spending on this development?

Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the British Aircraft Corporation and Rolls-Royce have a real interest in the use of the Spey engine in the BAC111. They have started a study, costing £200,000, into the preparation and the possibility of developing a hush kit for the Spey engine. All I would add is


what I said about the Government looking at the possibilities and the introduction of Annexe 16 standard to our airports. The right hon. Gentleman will understand the relationship of that to the whole problem.
I have been asked about the regional studies of the Civil Aviation Authority. These are regarded—rightly—as being important in the long-term development of civil aviation in this country. As the House will know, the Civil Aviation Authority has made clear its view that a single comprehensive study leading to a plan for an ideal airport network for the United Kingdom would probably be impracticable. It was for this reason that it started a number of regional studies which have been either published or are in process of being published or developed. The work being carried out in this direction will be incorporated into the report that the Government will present to Parliament when it is ready for consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was arguing for a two-year delay, a genuine argument. But the Government have to satisfy the House by the report to be published whether the House should agree to the decision to go forward with the Maplin proposition. Therefore, it is not right to set a two year, 18-month or three-year delay. The important thing is whether the House should accept the argument when the report is published. Within those arguments, it will be necessary—the Government fully accept it having consulted the Civil Aviation Authority—to incorporate the latest findings we can, with the possibility of growth of traffic in the regions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) made an extremely important speech. He asked the question which has vexed probably everybody with this particular responsibility. That is whether the options, of trying to cope with air traffic in the future, include the possibility of a green field site being developed in this country. This is relevant not only to the South-East but to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce report which suggests that we should develop extensive airports in certain regional centres. It is relevant to my

hon. Friends who are interested in the Gatwick situation.
The fact is that however many people argue that quieter engines are coming, the vast majority do not believe that aircraft bring anything other than noisy intrusion into their lives. There is nothing that the Government could do, even if they wanted to, to persuade them otherwise. My hon. Friend is right to ask whether we are being realistic in thinking that there is an alternative strategy for airports which does not involve the construction of a coastal site.
Hon. Members have asked questions about the procedures to be followed in the publication of the Government report. My hon. Friends the Members for Windsor, Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Bristol North-East (Mr. Adley) asked substantial questions. I should like to deal with them because they are important to the debate. First, the Government are committed, following their consultative processes, which are covered by amendments, to the publication of the report. Obviously the report will be of great concern to the House. The Government will then introduce an order subject to negative procedure. It will be for the House to decide whether it wishes to pray against that order.
We give these assurances very clearly. First of all, there will be a full debate—a full day's debate. Secondly, no steps will be taken—I say this in particular in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton—to allow work to start during the 40-day period during which Prayers can take place.
I hope that, with these assurances, which, I think, cover the three points which were put to me, my hon. Friends will feel that we have given full assurances which will satisfy all the doubts which might conceivably arise on that matter.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that I very much hope that he will not feel it necessary to inject the rigidity of a two-year delay into this legislation. The reasons why I say that are, I think, clear. This is a highly controversial decision we are asking the House to consider and to decide upon when the order is introduced. The fact remains that there will undoubtedly be as deeply held feelings


then as there have been all the way through the third London airport controversy—as indeed there are all across the world when anybody tries to-day to build a new airport. It will be right for the House to recognise that if a decision is taken to go ahead with Maplin at that time there should not be a rigidity in the time in which the decision should be implemented. It is fair that once the decision is taken there should be no question of its being held up in the way suggested.
It would be reasonable to ask that the Government should be given all reasonable time to produce their report. There would be no purpose in the Government's producing a report insufficiently prepared to satisfy the House, because the House would not accept it. That is the safeguard which I very much hope my hon. Friend and the House will feel able to accept.
In putting this request as I have to my hon. Friend I think I sum up the whole dilemma of this matter. It is, and will remain, a controversial decision. It affects millions of people in this country, and there is no way in which that can be avoided. But there is no doubt that it is the Government's wish, in the light of the immense public anxiety and interest, that we should provide all the latest information and have one final look at it.
I hope that, given the assurances which my right hon. Friend gave, and amplified, perhaps, by one or two things which I have said tonight, the House will feel that we have gone as far as we can possibly be expected to go to meet the legitimate anxieties which have been expressed on behalf of the wider public. I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will feel able to withdraw his amendment to the Lords amend-

ment and that the House will feel able to accept the Lords amendment No. 4 and that the Opposition will feel that, as the subjects dealt with by their two amendments we are debating to the Lords amendments, will be covered by our report, it will not he unnecessary to press their amendments to a Division.

Mr. Crouch: By leave of the House, I would just say that this Bill has come back considerably changed to this place from the other place, but that is not the only change which has taken place. I have seen and witnessed a transformation in the Secretary of State this afternoon in his whole attitude towards the Maplin Development Bill, and I welcome that change because he has shown generosity in listening to the arguments both for and against the Maplin development. It is because of that that I wonder whether I also should change rather than continue my reckless abandon in opposing the Government.
I have already said to the House that I am against the Maplin project, but I have received assurances, the House has heard assurances, from the Secretary of State and from the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, to the effect that they are prepared at least to listen to the House, and I cannot ask for more than that. In view of those assurances, and of the fact that we are going to be able to debate this matter when the Government make their report following their consultations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment to the Lords amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 175.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Concannon, J. D.
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Austick, David
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Evans, Fred


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tarn
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Forrester, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Deakins, Eric
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh
Galpern, Sir Myer


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Clark, David (Coine Valley)
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)




Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John


Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rowlands, Ted


Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield.E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marquand, David
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton.N.E.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Marsden, F.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Meacher, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendolson, John
Small, William


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jenkins, Rt. H. Roy (Stechford)
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


John, Brynmor
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stallard, A. W.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milne, Edward
Steel, David


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moate, Roger
Stott, Roger


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerr, Russell
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Swain, Thomas


Kinnock, Neil
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lambie, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lamborn, Harry
O'Malley, Brian
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Orbach, Maurice
Tope, Graham


Latham, Arthur
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pardoe, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Leonard, Dick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wallace, George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wellbeloved, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Whitehead, Phillip


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McCartney, Hugh
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Machin, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackie, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Mackintosh, John P.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Mr. Michael Cocks.





NOES



Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul
Hunt, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Drayson, Burnaby
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
James, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fidler, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jopling, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fookes. Miss Janet
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Benyon, W.
Fraser.Rt.Hn.Hughf(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kimball, Marcus


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Kinsey, J. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brewis, John
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Green, Alan
Lamont, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grylls, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Loveridge, John


Buck, Antony
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McLaren, Martin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David


Carlisle, Mark
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman


Chichester-Clark, R.
Havers, Sir Michael
Mitchell,Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushciffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Money, Ernie


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper


Cooper, A. E.
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Costain, A. P.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John







Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David


Parkinson, Cecil
Soref, Harold
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Sproat, Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Weatherill, Bernard


Redmond, Robert
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Sutcliffe, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret



Russell, Sir Ronald
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Scott, Nicholas
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr. John Stradling Thoma


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 37, at end insert:
(9) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, the National Ports Council, the Port of London Authority, the Maplin Development Authority and such other persons as appear to him appropriate, and shall lay a report of the consultations and of his conclusions before Parliament and shall state in that report his assessment of the likely

effect on the other regions of any development to be carried out in or near the area in which land is to be reclaimed."

Read a second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment: No. 3, after ' conclusions ' insert:
'thereon and his assessment of the probable effects of the road and rail communications to the proposed development on the environment of London and the South East'.—[Mr. Crosland.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 170.

Division No. 222]
AYES
[10.26 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Harry
Latham, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Austick, David
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lipton, Marcus


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths. Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Hugh (D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Machin, George


Carmichael, Neil
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horam, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Maclennan, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Marsden, F.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor
Meacher, Michael


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mendelson, John


Dolg, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, J. D.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Millan, Bruce


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Douglas-Manna, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Milne, Edward


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Moate, Roger


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lambie, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamborn, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Evans, Fred
Lamond, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)




Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John
Summerskill, Hn. Or. Shirley


Oakes, Gordon
Rote, Paul B.
Swain, Thomas


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


O'Malley, Brian
Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tope, Graham


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.


Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton.N.E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pardoe, John
Silkin. Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wallace, George


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, Ernest G.
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Steel, David
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwyf Caernarvon)
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Michael Cocks.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gummer. J. Selwyn
Osborn, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gurden, Harold
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, RI. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parkinson, Cecil


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Haselhursl, Alan
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Havers, Sir Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Heseltine, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brewis, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buck, Anthony
James, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jessel, Toby
Soref, Harold


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Spence, John


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sproat, lain


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Sutcliffe, John


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooper, A. E.
Kinsey, J. R.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Dean, Paul
Lamont, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lane, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Drayson, Burnaby
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tugendhat, Christopher


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Loveridge, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren. Martin
Waddington, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fidler, Michael
Madel, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Fry, Peter
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)
Wilkinson, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Money, Ernie
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morrison. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Green, Alan
Noble. Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nott. John



Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

ANCILLARY POWERS OF MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Lords Amendnzent: No. 5, in page 3, line 5, at end insert:
(2) The Maplin Development Authority shall provide for the local authorities in whose areas any of the land to be reclaimed under this Act is situated, for other local authorities whose areas may he affected by the reclamation or use of that land, and for other organisations representing the interests of persons in those areas, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to such matters relating to the Authority's functions as affect their interests.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new subsection lays on the Maplin Development Authority a statutory obligation to make arrangements for consultation with local authorities and other organisations whose interests are likely to be affected by the development authority's activities. In putting forward this new provision in the other place, we had particularly in mind the position of the Kent County Council and, of course, the Essex County Council, and the development authority will now be under a clear obligation to make arrangements to consult closely both of these bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9

PROTECTION OF FLORA AND FAUNA

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 6, after "Conservancy" insert "Council".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If the House wishes to discuss Amendment No. 6, I think it will be convenient to take for discussion at the same time Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 8, after "Conservancy" insert "Council".
No. 8, in page 5, line 11, leave out "the Nature Conservancy" and insert "that Council".

Mr. Griffiths: This is a series of purely drafting amendments. They arise because the Nature Conservancy Council Act has created a new Nature Conservancy. These are drafting amendments to take care of that change.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 10

HAVENGORE CREEK

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 5, line 17, at end insert:
and the Authority may provide installations for facilitating the use of the channel.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 10. I call the attention of the House to the fact that its privileges are involved in Amendment No. 10.

Mr. Griffiths: We are concerned here with the preservation of a navigable channel through Havengore Creek. This is possibly a small question compared with the magnitude of the matters which we have previously been discussing, but I think the House will be interested to learn that more time has been spent in discussing navigation through the Haven-gore Creek than on almost all of the other clauses in the Bill. What we me providing here is that there should be powers for the Maplin Development Authority to provide installations which will facilitate the use of the channel through Havengore Creek. These could include moorings or slipways to help those who can pass under the bridges in their navigation through this area.
Secondly, the new subsection (2B) gives the Secretary of State discretionary power to make grants towards the conversion of a boat, needing more than four metres clearance above water level.
I think that this goes a very long way to meeting some of the anxieties of the local yachting interests, but I would also say that we shall be having a series of discussions with the Royal Yachting Association and other yachting interests with a view to setting up a working party to


deal with such remaining aspects of the Maplin project as are of particular concern to yachtsmen. I can assure the House that there is no danger of the yachting case, or that of small boatmen who are interested in Havengore Creek, being made to go by default.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: This is a matter upon which I have received representations from constituents in my area who use small boats. They approached me some time ago on this question of the effect of the Bill on their activities in Havengore Creek.
Could the Minister tell the House what cost is likely to fall upon public funds because of the special arrangements which are being made to preserve Haven-gore Creek for the use of private yachting? Indeed, it would be interesting to know what volume of traffic uses this creek. While I have every sympathy with the yachting and boating fraternity, especially those who reside in my own constituency, the House should be very careful to see that we do not incur the expenditure of substantial sums of public money for facilities for a limited number of people. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can say a word about this to enable us to pass the amendment without opposition.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The cost to public funds is likely to be comparatively small—indeed, very small.

Mr. Wellbeloved: How much?

Mr. Griffiths: It is quite impossible to judge what the likely cost may be in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Bill requires that anyone who can show that he has habitually been using Havengore Creek during the years immediately preceeding its being affected by the Maplin development will be able to say to the Secretary of State that he has incurred certain expenses, for example to step down his mast in order to go under the 4 metre high bridge. In that case the Secretary of State would have discretion to meet his reasonable expenses. At the same time, the Maplin Development

Authority would be empowered to provide moorings at either side of the navigable channel.
The number of boats is of this order of magnitude: in 1970 there were 188 sailing craft—and I assure the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that the vast majority of them are very small; they have to be relatively small to get up the creek in any case. There were, in addition, 182 motor craft, including 24 fishing boats, making a total in 1970 of 370. That number rose in 1972 to over 500, but it may be that in that count some boats have been counted more than once.
The amounts of money involved are comparatively small, but the House, in Select Committee and in Standing Committee, and another place showed real concern about taking away those facilities from people without their being given some form of compensation. The Select Committee so recommended. I am sure the other place was right to put forward an amendment on these lines, and I hope the House will agree with the Lords in this amendment

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment agreed to: No. 10, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
(2A) The Secretary of State may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make such grants to the Maplin Development Authority towards the cost of providing the installations mentioned in subsection (1) above as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
(2B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that, before the passing of this Act, the owner of a vessel requiring clearance above water level of more than four metres habitually navigated Havengore Creek in that vessel and—

(a) that, without a reduction of the clearance so required, the channel maintained in accordance with this section would not allow or have allowed such access by it as is mentioned in subsection (2) above; but
(b) that the clearance so required has been or could be sufficiently reduced by conversion of the vessel at reasonable expense;
he may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make to the owner such grant for or towards the cost of the conversion as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine." —[Mr. Eldon Griffiths]. [Special Entry.]

Clause 23

PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN PERSONS AFFECTED BY LAND RECLAMATION

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 12, line 37, after "plan" insert:
or from the processing of white weed so gathered".

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a comparatively small matter. It concerns the white weed processing works in this area. It provides that any loss of livelihood derived from processing white weed, if that white weed was gathered within the limits of deviation, is compensatable on the same conditions as the gathering of the weed or the taking of fish or shellfish.
The white weed industry in the area is said to employ 11 boats, 20 processing workers full-time on shore and up to 100 part-time workers.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 26

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 14, line 3, leave out "undertaker" "and insert:
'undertakers' includes the Post Office and otherwise".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor correcting amendment to include the Post Office in the definition of "statutory undertakers".

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

EXCLUSION OR MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 20, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert:
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, where the Maplin Development Authority fails

to comply with a direction given under this paragraph".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The main purpose is to extend the circumstances in which the Port of London Authority could give directions to the Maplin Development Authority to cover the conservancy of the River Thames, for which the PLA has a duty under its 1968 Act, and to ensure navigational safety.

Question put and agreed to

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords]

Motion made and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the recent Session.

That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall he ordered to lie upon the Table.

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[Chairman of Ways and Means.]

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: It will be within the recollection of the Chair that I and some of my


colleagues objected to this procedure earlier today. I appreciate that we are now debating a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means and that the debate is somewhat restricted. But we have indicated that we object to the procedure whereby issues of this kind are put down for discussion at the end of a day's debates and that very often. because of other engagements and because of the lateness of the hour, hon. Members are precluded from dealing with them properly.
We object in principle to the attempt outlined in procedural motions of this kind to safeguard the promoters of Private Bills. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) put a question to the Leader of the House which is of considerable interest in the context of this debate. Here we have an outside organisation promoting a Bill and asking the House to agree to that Bill going on to the statute book. Whether by design, coincidence or fortuitous circumstances, that Bill comes before the House in its various stages. It is then discovered at the end of the day that it will not be possible to secure the Bill within the Session, with the consequence that the Bill will fall. Along come the Government, through the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to put down a procedural motion which is designed to ensure that the Bill does not fall.
That is fair enough. A valid case could be made for the implementation of such an operation. But what happens when an hon. Member adopts the same practice and comes to the House with a Private Member's Bill about which he may have received an -enormous amount of representation? He might have been in the House for 15 or 20 years and in his accumulated knowledge he might con-conclude that it would be highly desirable for him to submit to the House a Bill of a specific kind. That Bill would be equally important as the Bill which the Government might wish to safeguard by the use of a procedural motion.
The Government do not come to the House to say, "The hon. Member for Blackbottom has a good Bill. He has brought it to us and unfortunately, by fortuitous circumstances, it seems as though it will be lost unless we get it through this Session. We will put a pro-

cedural motion before the House." They do not do that. They say, "Too bad, old boy. Hard luck. We will not do anything about it."
If the procedural language which we see in the Order Paper is to be justified in connection with Private Bills promoted by outside organisations, may we assume that in future the Government will apply the same principle to Private Members' Bills? That is the first issue which should be dealt with. [he motion provides:
That the Promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings in order to proceed with the Bill. if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament… 
The purpose of the motion is to ensure that they have not to go through the procedure which we as Members of Parliament would have to go through if we had a Bill that failed in one Session. We would have to bring it back the next Session, if we got the opportunity to do so. What the motion is saying to Members of this House is this, "We do not apply this privilege, this favour, to you. but we apply it to the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill.
We have been told that this procedure is not new, and that there have been three other occasions when this procedure has been adopted. But that does not make it any more virtuous than if this were being done for the first time. I am not arguing specifically about this Bill, but only as it relates to the motion with which we are now dealing. It would apply to the use of procedure in this case and would apply equally to other cases.
There is always a good reason why these procedural motions are adopted. I know that this is a narrow matter, but I think I am entitled to make a passing reference—rather than a detailed reference —to this matter because it is essential to illustrate why I think this procedural motion has been adopted in this case. If we cannot do this within the rules of order, then many of us have been out of order for many years.
It is bad enough when such a motion is used, but it is even worse when in both Houses it has been pointed out that there is a fundamental objection, a point in the Bill which is repugnant both to this House


and the other place. It has been established that this cuts across the whole principle of a democratic procedure which has existed for centuries. That surely cannot be changed by this Bill, and this is one reason why the procedural motion should not apply.
I must be careful in what I say since I do not want to be ruled out of order and perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will guide me if I go too far. The principle that was repugnant to us and to Members of another place was the method by which voting took place among the conservators.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has asked for your guidance and he has now, for the first time, started discussing the merits of the Bill, which I would suppose to be completely out of order. Would you be good enough to give a ruling?

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order. Whether this motion is passed or not has some bearing on the fate of the Bill. What fate should overtake the Bill is related to the contents of the Bill. Therefore, if we debate the merits of the motion it cannot fail to be in order to debate the consequences either of passing it or of not passing it. That is intimately linked with the contents of the Bill. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if the hon. Member had not been in order, you would have sprung to your feet and told him so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Member is quite right. I have heard nothing that is out of order.

Mr. Loughlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had been warned that the supporters of the Bill would be watchful tonight lest we put one foot out of order, and that they would repeatedly ensure that the Chair did its job.
I was saying that there was a fundamental objection by both Houses to the voting system. My problem is that the Bill's amended form, which I have before me, makes it impossible to remove this principle. So, even if the Bill were re-debated we could not amend the voting rights because that would extend the

scope of the Bill. There is, therefore, an even greater need for the Government not to exploit the situation by proceeding with this motion.
In doing so, they would inadvertently —they have no vicious bent—allow to remain on the Order Paper for next Session a Bill which would be debated in the early hours of the morning and not get the proper scrutiny, and which embodies a principle of loaded voting—of some people having 20 or 200 votes while others have only one—to which we are all opposed. It would be sensible to let the Bill lapse and give the sponsors the opportunity to bring back a Bill which was more acceptable to this House and the other place, which has an equal responsibility for ensuring equity in Private Bills as well as public Bills.
There can be no justification for the Government attempting to safeguard a Bill of this kind. There may be circumstances in which a Bill should be safeguarded, but not a Bill of this kind, to which there is a fundamental objection. I hope that the Government will be prepared to withdraw the motion.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: As I had the privilege of introducing the Bill on Second Reading on behalf of the promoters, perhaps I may briefly explain by I think the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is wrong. He objects to the procedure adopted in these circumstances. There is nothing wrong with the procedure. There are precedents for it this Session. If he does not like that procedure, that is another matter.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that this is not a Bill to which the procedure to which he objects should apply. I apprehend that if we adopt the motion, as I hope we shall, there will be an opportunity on the consideration stage when he and others will be able to raise such matters as worry them.

Mr. Loughlin: It does not matter how much we discuss it again, this provision to which we object cannot be altered because the scope of the Bill cannot be extended. It would be unparliamentary to extend it.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I appreciate that point. As I recall it, the hon.


Gentleman made it on Second Reading. It has been under consideration and I have no doubt that the attention of the Committee was drawn to it.

Rh. James Wel!beloved: The Committee itself found that it was unable to introduce this essential element of democracy—one man, one vote—into the Bill because it was beyond the scope of the Bill. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman is saying does not overcome the fundamental difficulty that the Bill ought not to pass this democratic assembly because it does not conform to a basic requirement of this country.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I see that we have the advantage of the presence of the Chairman of the Committee and perhaps he will be able to catch the eye of the Chair in due course and deal with the point. Those who have read the proceedings of the Committee will note that this was one of the matters to which the Chairman specifically referred at the end, when he was making his recommendations.
The Bill was unopposed in the other place and it has a great deal of support from many bodies throughout the country. The agreement in the House of Lords was reached only after there had been discussions with the Uckfield Rural District Council and also arrangements with the AA and the RAC which enabled those organisations to give their support as well. The Bill was introduced in the other place and in this House with the support of the Department of the Environment, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and also the Friends of Ashdown Forest as well as the conservators. That is a very formidable list of supporters.
I see that we have the privilege of the presence of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) in the Chamber. On Second Reading he mentioned that discussions had been taking place with the association of which he is president for a period of five years. A great deal of thought and attention had been given to the Bill before it went to the other place.
In the East Sussex County Council there has been unanimous support for the Bill including the support of representatives from not only the country areas in East Sussex but also the resorts and coastal areas. The Second Reading debate in this House took place on 4th July, and the Bill then went to the Opposed Bill Committee. That Committee had the advantage of hearing the clerk of the county council, Mr. Atkinson, the chairman of the conservators, Mr. Mountain, Lieutenant-Commander Angel, clerk to the conservators, Mr. Oliver, vice-chairman of the Ashdown Forest Commoners Committee and Mr. Glover, a commoner. Five days of careful consideration was given to the evidence which came before the Committee. As a result, only three amendments were brought forward by the Committee when the proceedings concluded.
Today is not a proper occasion to debate the merits of the amendments or, indeed, of any part of the Bill. All that I wish to do is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that only three amendments were suggested by the Committee. If the procedure which is outlined by the Chairman of Ways and Means is accepted, there will be ample opportunity for dealing with those matters on a subsequent occasion.
Putting the matter in a nutshell, the view that I should like the House to take is that a great deal of attention and support has been given to the Bill by Committees of both Houses and much public money has been spent in getting the proceedings to this stage. Therefore, the promoters and I would regard it as a disaster if the motion were not accepted by the House.

11.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I intervene in the debate very briefly, because the motion before us is strictly procedural, and simply to reply to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and to advise the House of the Government's view.
As I understand the matter, it is a quite frequent and conventional procedure for there to be carry-over motions of this kind. I understand that advice was sought from the House authorities, and it fell to the Chairman of Ways and


Means to determine whether or not the Bill was appropriate for the carry-over procedure. It is my understanding that the Chairman concluded that it was. The only other advice that I have which may be helpful to the House is that the conventions on Private Bill procedure are that it is customary for the House to accept the findings of one of its Select Committees in matters of this kind. I might, indeed, quote Erskine May on this particular point, where in his Parliamentary Practice he states:
… when debates on third reading have taken place"—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give the reference?

Mr. Griffiths: I could not give a page reference, but I will get it for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If a Minister quotes from Erskine May, is it not customary for him to give the location within Erskine May so that hon. Members can check the accuracy of what he is reading? We are not shorthand writers.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not have the exact page before me, but I will get it for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Will my hon. Friend please get it before he purports to quote it? That is the normal procedure.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I do not purport to quote from Erskine May. I shall quote from the matter which has been supplied to me and I will immediately ask that the reference is provided for the House. I shall, if necessary, intervene to give the reference. Indeed, due to the excellent assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I now have it. It is, I think, pages 1025 and 1026—it may well be that those are paragraph numbers; I am not sure—of the 17th Edition of Erskine May where it is stated:
… when debates on third reading have taken place, it has been said that the House, though it has undoubtedly the power to do so, should normally never reject the decision of the select committee unless new or special considerations arise ".

It is open to the House to determine whether "new or special considerations" have arisen in this case. It is not for me to seek to draw any conclusions about that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point—

Mr. Griffiths: It is the only point that I shall make.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, unless my ears deceived me, my hon. Friend uttered the words
… when debates on third reading have taken place… ".
Is he under the impression that this Bill has received a Third Reading?

Mr. Griffiths: I am about to come to that point. My hon. Friend is very quick in these matters. Perhaps I was getting to the point rather slowly.
I simply wished to draw attention to the view of Erskine May—that in general the House agrees with the conclusions of one of its Select Committees in matters of this kind simply because the Select Committee has had the opportunity of examining the Bill in great detail and of determining the evidence for and against the contents of the Bill. From what I have been advised, I think that the Select Committee in this case should be congratulated on the painstaking and careful way in which it seems to have dealt with the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: We are not debating the Bill. We are debating the procedure motion which is on the Order Paper. There is no reflection on the Select Committee which considered the Bill. It did not determine that this motion should be put on the Order Paper. I do not know what the argument is about.

Mr. Griffiths: The last thing which I wish to do is to participate in an argument. I merely want to offer to the House, in part responding to the hon. Gentleman's comments, the advice which has been given to me.

Mr. Loughlin: The Select Committee has had nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to offer the House the advice which I have been given and will make his judgment on it.
If he decides that he does not like it, that is up to him. I am simply making it available.

Mr. Loughlin: It is not a question of whether it is available. It is a question of whether it is relevant to our discussion. What we are discussing has nothing to do with the Select Committee's deliberations.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his advice. It is for the House to determine whether it is relevant.
The Select Committee having given very careful consideration to the Bill, it is customary—I say no more— for the House to accept its findings. I commend to the House that it should follow this excellent tradition and allow the Bill to go on its way.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I hope this evening to be able to raise a number of serious constitutional matters which I trust hon. Members will take into consideration in coming LP a decision on this procedural motion. I shall seek to show that the motion puts Private Business in a more favourable position than any other business that comes before this honourable House Secondly, I shall seek to show that a new situation has arisen which ought to persuade hon. Members not to support the motion.
Before dealing with those serious matters, I should like to extend a warm welcome to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on his attendance at the debate and hope that during our deliberations we shall hear from him. I say that because this is a serious matter which, if the motion is passed, will affect his constituency. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will voice the views of his constituents in a speech, and not confine himself to the one point of order that he has raised.

Sir T. Beamish: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more accurate in the rest of his speech than he has been so far. Ashdown Forest is not in my constituency.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am aware of that, and I did not say that it lay in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency.
Nevertheless, the volume of traffic and the number of people involved must affect those of his constituents who travel up the A22 to got to London. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels that the Bill and the motion have no relevance to his constituents, I wonder what is his interest in being here. I am sure that in due course he will inform us of it. The passing of the motion will have a great impact upon my constituents. Many of them use Ashdown Forest for relaxation, and wish to continue to do so. There is obviously a considerable difference between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself, but I am delighted that he is here and I hope that we shall hear from him.
I regret that the Chairman of Ways and Means chose to move the motion formally and not give the House the benefit of his vast experience and some inkling of the reasons which led him to table the motion. It is always considered proper for hon. Members who move motions relating to matters of great importance, and especially when they know that other hon. Members have considerable doubts about them, to explain the position and thus perhaps remove many of the apprehensions and perhaps misunderstandings which exist.
Having been slightly critical of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I must now say that I recognise that in that capacity he has a duty with regard to private legislation and that he has a relatively narrow area of manoeuvre. I do not want in any way to cast aspersions upon the propriety of the Chairman of Ways and Means in putting down the motion, and I shall confine myself to saying that it would have been better if he had explained the position.
I should like to take the opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the great courtesy which the Chairman of Ways and Means has shown me in particular over a number of years during debates of this nature when I have been a vigorous opponent on matters coming within his responsibility. Despite the lateness of the hour and the heat of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman has always shown great courtesy and respect for the democratic process and procedures of the House and has protected the right of individual Members to express a point of view. I know that


the House will join me in paying him a tribute for the courtesy with which he performs his arduous task.
The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said that the points adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) about the great principle of one man one vote could be put right when the Bill comes up, under the terms of the motion, next Session. That course of action is not open to us. The Short Title of the Bill does not permit that. It is beyond the scope of the measure affected by the motion for democracy to be introduced into the Bill. That is why many hon. Members believe that the motion allowing such a Bill the privilege of passing over to the next Session should not be approved.
The Under-Secretary said that there have been precedents for this sort of motion. He drew attention to the presence tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), who was the distinguished Chairman of the Committee set up to consider the Bill. I am aware of the stalwart and painstaking work that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members performed in examining this measure in great detail. The Minister was therefore right to pay such a glowing tribute to those hon. Members. Service on a Committee considering private legislation is not one of the most sought-after jobs. It is a job which starts in the morning and can continue till late in the afternoon and isolate Members from all that is going on in the House and make it difficult for them to attend to their constituency duties, especially the great volume of mail with which a Member must deal.
The Minister, quoting from pages 1025 and 1026 of that great volume of Parliamentary knowledge, Erskine May, said that it was accepted practice that on Third Reading one did not deal with matters that had been considered by the Select Committee. That is a procedure which is not entirely confined to private legislation. That is the normal procedure on all Third Readings. As I understand the procedure—I regret that I have not the relevant quotation from Erskine May to hand, but I see that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-

Hyslop) is looking through Erskine May now and will—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Lest the hon. Gentleman may have been misled by the Minister's intervention, I hasten to tell him that not only did my hon. Friend produce a quotation which did not apply to the circumstances today, because there has not been a Third Reading, but he produced one from an obsolete edition of Erskine May, which I cannot find in the current 18th edition.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That could be quickly remedied. The publishing house of Butterworth publishes Erskine May, and I am sure that the House could afford to purchase a copy to put the Minister right so that he could quote from the relevant edition, the 18th edition which is there on the Table, and not the 17th. However, granted that the hon. Gentleman was wrongly advised by those whose job it is—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No one is seeking to mislead anyone. It is true that the note I have is taken from the 17th Edition. It is probable that the House wisely keeps on the Table the more up-to-date edition, the 18th, and it may be that the quotation which I gave appears on a different page there. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is in the same language, although on a different page in the volume which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has. I shall be glad—though I hope that he will not ask me to do it now—to give him the reference to the edition which he now has in his hand.

Mr. Wellbeloved: No doubt the hon. Member for Tiverton will pursue that matter later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was dealing with the point which the Minister raised about the appropriate time to debate amendments coming from Committees, whether they be Committees concerned with Private Bills or our normal Standing Committees dealing with Public Bills. That moment is obviously when the Bill is before the House on Report, not on Third Reading, so I do not think that we are too much in difficulty with the Minister.
I shall seek to show that the procedure motion puts this Bill and private


legislation in a more favourable position. For this purpose, I think it necessary to explain one or two matters regarding the private legislation which the House is from time to time called upon to consider. There is some misunderstanding of the term "Private Bill". Many hon. Members to whom I have spoken today are under the impression that Private Bills are the Bills for which hon. Members ballot and, if they are fortunate, present to the House. In fact, the Private Bill covered by this procedure motion is quite distinct from that.
Private Bills are covered by two sets of Standing Orders, those in respect of the House of Commons and those in respect of Private Business. The private business with which we are here concerned comes under Standing Order No. 7 of the Standing Orders dealing with public business. Paragraph (1) reads:
On Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the time for private business shall end not later than a quarter to three o'clock and business entered upon and not disposed of at that hour shall be deferred to such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may appoint 
The normal procedure is that at 2.30 p.m., before we embark upon Questions, there appears on the Order Paper the title of the private legislation set down under Standing Order No. 7. If it is objected to by an hon. Member being present in the House and calling out "Object" it automatically cannot proceed, because it is opposed business. It is then a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. If there is verbal objection, or if a motion is placed upon the Order Paper, normally in the words "That the Bill be read a Second time" —or whatever may be the relevant stage —"upon this day six months", the Chairman of Ways and Means has to arrange for that to be dealt with.
I find that there is often confusion between that sort of private legislation and the Private Members' Bills for which hon. Members ballot or which they can seek leave to introduce under Standing Orders Nos. 13 or 6 of the General Standing Orders covering the House.
We are dealing with quite a complicated area of procedure. It is essential that the House should have clearly in mind the difficulties that face people dealing with and charged with the responsibility of introducing either Private

Members' Bills or Private Bills under the control of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The other type of Bill that comes before the House—the Public Bill introduced by the Government under Standing Order No. 6(1)—takes priority except on those occasions when the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down for debate the type of private business to which I have referred, at seven o'clock on normal days or on Fridays, which are set aside mainly for other types of business.
The difference between the type of private legislation covered by the procedure motion this evening and public business is that there is no provision and no precedent for carrying over the latter to the next Session. However desperate the Government may be for their legislation and however important that legislation may be to the nation, there is no precedent that I can find which enables the Government to put a procedure motion before the House to take that Bill over to the next Session.
I now put my first major point for the consideration of the House. When we are dealing with the question of a decision on a matter of legislation that involves the life of the country in its totality—a matter perhaps involving a great principle of Government policy—if for any reason the Bill concerned has not completed all its stages by the time the House ends the Session the Bill falls, and the Government have to introduce it again in the next Session, from its very beginning—from the First Reading—right through.
Under the Standing Orders covering private business we give a more favourable position to legislation promoted by private interests. That seems an odd constitutional position that certainly ought to be taken into account when considering the motion, because, without any doubt, it will place in a privileged position over public and private Members Bills legislation which comes under the responsibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
It can be and has been argued that there is a precedent for the stand-over of Bills of this nature. That is quite correct. I have taken the precaution of checking back over the last 10 years,


or more, the position regarding stand-over motions of this nature.
In the Session 1957/58 seven such Bills, several of which dealt with water undertakings, were passed over to the next Session. However, as far as I can ascertain, none of them was so hotly contested as the Ashdown Forest Bill, the subject of this procedure motion.
In the next Session no Bills were carried over. In the Session following that two Bills were carried over. Then from 1960 up to 1963—three Sessions—no private legislation of this nature was carried over. In both the 1964 and 1965 Sessions one Bill was carried over to the next Session.
I could go on putting on record the position relating to this matter. Of course, there have been two occasions—in 1966 and again in 1970—when, because of a General Election, the House quite rightly made an exception to carrying over the business. Obviously I do not object to that. I do not think that any hon. Member would object. If it is not possible, because of the intervention of a General Election, for the promoters of private legislation to get their busness through the House, they ought not to suffer any difficulties. On the other hand, if, as in this instance, the difficulties have arisen because of opposition in the House of Commons, they ought not to be given that facility.
I have shown that in a number of years there has been no stand-over under this kind of procedure motion. I hope that I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the House that there are just as many precedents of parliamentary Sessions when no suspension motions have been moved as there are when suspension motions have been moved as there are when suspensions motions of this nature have been moved. If so, I think that neutralises the precedent argument, unless it can be shown by the Chairman of Ways and Means—I hope we shall have a reply from him—that there are particular reasons that put this Bill in a situation where privilege of this kind is justified.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend has quoted occasions when there have been precedents as well as occasions when

there have been no precedents. But is it strictly accurate to assume that, because an action has taken place previously, it is a four-square precedent? Is it not right that, before it can be determined that it is a precedent, the circumstances in which the action took place should be explained?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West. When I was making a plea that we should get a reply to this debate from the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I was hoping that he would be able to show some reason for his action in putting down the motion. I think the Chairman of Ways and Means is a fair man, and if he can show to the House that there are conclusive reasons then we shall, quite rightly, have to take them into account and give great weight to them when we come to take our decision in the Division on this procedural motion. It may well be, if we are to get a reply from the Chairman, that he will be able to show that there are similarities. I have not been able to find identical comparisons between this Bill and others that were suspended, but I would accept that my research has not been of great depth into that aspect. I take my hon. Friend's point that if a similarity can be shown it will give great weight to the case for the suspension motion.
But the duty to show and prove that point does not rest with myself or with other hon. Friends who join me in opposing this procedural motion. It rests with those who promoted the procedural motion to prove that, and let us hope that they will at least be able to bring some factual evidence to this debate. It would be a very serious position if we had a motion of this nature before us, and a serious challenge made—as has been made in the debate so far by my hon. Friends and now there is this point which my hon. Friend has allowed me to develop—but not answered, and if we were called upon to take a decision completely devoid of a factual case on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, after all, is responsible under his duty to put this motion upon the Order Paper.
I said that I would also seek to show that a new situation has developed which affects this business motion, and that is


on this question of precedent. We are in a situation where it is not only the Chairman of Ways and Means who is facilitating this Ashdown Forest Bill by his motion; it is also the Government who have decided to intervene and give aid to this Bill. As other hon. Members have already pointed out, we have a situation where earlier today the Government's business motion was designed to rearrange the business of this House, in order to suspend the Standing Order which places upon the Chairman of Ways and Means the duty to put down matters for debate at 7 o'clock. The Government, in the form of the Prime Minister himself in whose name the earlier motion stood, have taken the responsibility for rearranging business, for modifying the Standing Orders, in order to facilitate not some great item of public business but this miserable Private Bill which denies basic democracy to the people most intimately concerned with its operation. But I will not develop that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or, quite rightly, you will call me to order for getting too deep into the merits of the Bill itself.
The new situation is also complicated because the Leader of the House was unable today, when he presented his Business Motion and made available the special privilege facilities to the Ashdown Forest Bill, to say when he was challenged in an intervention by myself whether he was prepared to grant the same Government facilities as he has now been party to granting to private legislation, to hon. Members in this House who are promoting Private Members' Bills.
This is a serious constitutional situation. This new precedent has been established by the Prime Minister. I do not make this point in any party political sense. I would make exactly the same point if my own party were in power and were guilty of this sort of action. It is important to defend the rights of hon. Members. Here we have this new precedent established, and its seriousness lies in the fact that it gives a special privilege to Bills promoted by private vested interests, whether the vested interest be a commercial or a corporation interest. Those are narrow interests and they ought not to have this privileged treatment. We should not only reject this

motion, but we should organise a substantial campaign to see that the same facilities are granted to Private Members. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Bill, I am absolutely and unalterably opposed to the Bill receiving preferential treatment and special facilities.
Having dealt briefly with the constitutional position as I see it, and having put forward a case which must be taken into consideration, I should like to turn to the practicalities of the motion. It would be easiest if I dealt with the five constituent parts of the motion, as I see them. The first part says:
That the Promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament. …
We are not being asked to decide tonight that this Bill shall be suspended to the next Session and re-presented to Parliament. We are asked to leave it to the promoters to decide "if they think fit". Although I am opposed to them having this facility, if Parliament in its unwisdom were to grant them that facility, that would be one thing; but it is quite another thing for a business motion to allow the promoters to have the right to say, "We do not care if you have spent such a long time on this procedural motion; we are not going to take advantage of it." I should much prefer it if we did not give them the facility at all. But I am totally opposed to giving it to them and leaving it to them to decide, as they think fit, whether to use that facility. I hope that we shall hear more about that.
Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I note that there is no one present on the Treasury Bench taking note of our many points. I note also that the Chairman of Ways and Means has disappeared. Perhaps I might interrupt my speech with a point of order to you. Is it in order for the mover of a procedural motion to absent himself from the House and not to have present someone who can deal with points arising in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): If the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) makes alleged points of order of that nature, lie will give the impression that he is rather more interested in wasting time than in anything else.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If it is considered a waste of time to adduce a case upon matters of considerable constitutional importance without the Chairman of Ways and Means being present, then perhaps it is a waste of time. But the waste of time is not by those hon. Members seeking to make these legitimate points under the rules of order. If they were not made under the rules of order, they would be ruled out of order by the Chair. I have proceeded strictly within order, and it is rather strange, to put it at its lowest, and discourteous, to put it at its highest that despite all my kind remarks about the Chairman of Ways and Means at the beginning of my speech, the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to absent himself—

Mr. Loughlin: Mr. Loughlin rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my hon. Friend wish to interrupt?

Mr. Loughlin: I wish to put a point of order to the Chair. I feel sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were not charging my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) with disorderly conduct in wasting time. I feel sure that that was not your intention. But that is how it appeared to us.
May I raise a further point of order? Are we to take it that the procedure of the House on a procedural matter of this kind is such that we are to have no reply to the points raised in the debate? I do not necessarily mean by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not know the organisation of the House sufficiently well to specify who should reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members may say more or less what they like within the rules of order. But they cannot insist that other hon. Members listen to them.

Mr. Loughlin: Perhaps I have not explained my point sufficiently. All that I am asking is whether, near the end of the debate, someone will reply to the debate or whether the arguments of hon. Members on both sides of the House are to be left in the air.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is

not for you, for whom is it? If we are not to have a reply, the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Wellbeloved: No one will challenge that ruling, and certainly I have no intention of doing so. But I repeat that it is rather an odd position. We are debating a very important matter and doing so within the rules of order. It is rather odd that the Chairman of Ways and Means does not feel it necessary to be here to listen. I thought when he left the Chamber that it might be a call of nature. However, it is an exceedingly long call. I hope that at least a message might be sent by, perhaps, one of the Government Whips, who are unoccupied now because this is private business and not Government business, to inform the Chairman of Ways and Means that it would be an act of courtesy to the House if he were to return. I do not put that view forward as a point of order but as a point in my speech.
I do not take exception, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, to your remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am giving, the impression of wasting time. That is not a reflection upon me but upon those whose duty it is to maintain order and, for example, to stop repetition. That is not a duty which falls upon me but which falls upon you, Sir. Any reflection about Members wasting time is a reflection upon the occupant of the Chair. I am sure, Sir, that you did not intend to rebuke yourself.
The motion before us provides that if the promoters think fit—that is the part with which I have dealt—they may in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the Bill—

Mr. David Stoddart: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument closely, and in the main I have a great deal of sympathy with what he has said. But does he mean what he said in his last few sentences? Surely it is within the purview of the mover of a motion or a Bill to withdraw at any time? Surely my hon. Friend would not wish to remove from the promoter of the Bill the right which he would normally have to withdraw?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. It is right and proper that at any stage in any Bill, motion or procedure, and even the motion before us now, the promoter, the Member in charge or the Chairman of Ways and Means should have the right to ask leave to withdraw? The point may well be covered in Standing Orders, but I cannot give the exact reference. I do not wish to infer that it is covered by Standing Orders. Certainly it is the custom and practice for a Member who has moved a proposition to the House to be able to seek the leave of the House to withdraw. If the Chairman of Ways and Means were to ask leave to withdraw, we would be delighted to give him leave.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It occurs to me that the difficulty we are in is even greater than that because the mover of the motion has withdrawn himself. He is not present to be in a position to withdraw the motion. As his is the only name on the motion, there is no one present who has the right under Standing Orders to withdraw the motion. If he were present now he might well, in view of what has already been said, wish to withdraw the motion. However, he cannot do that because he does not know what is being said. That is the great difficulty in which we are in.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree entirely. If I may, I shall finish my reply to my lion. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and then I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
The difference between the right of any Member to seek to withdraw a proposition and the withdrawal of this motion is that we are conferring not upon an hon. Member but upon the promoters, people outside the House, the right to decide whether the proposition should continue. I hope that they will have taken note of all that has been said. I hope that they will be sensible and will decide not to proceed with the Bill but to introduce a new one in the next Session. That would be by far the best course of action. My hon. Friend asked me whether I meant what I said. May I say that at the time I speak I always mean what I say.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised an important point. We are now debating a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and

Means. The Chairman of Ways and Means, for whatever reason, has absented himself from the Chamber and, if he does not withdraw the motion, the only way we can seek to act in this matter is by defeating the motion on a vote It may well be that in the end we shall have to take that course.
I return to my argument on the procedural motion. The motion continues:
… in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid".
That means that if within the next couple of days the promoters of the Bill say to the Private Bill Office that they wish to operate this procedural motion and give due notice and pay all the fees due, they can operate this procedure.
The fees due fo.r private legislation raise a most important point for the House to consider. I happen to have with me the Standing Orders relating to private business passing through this House. On pages 98 and 99 are set out the up to date fees charged for the promotion of private legislation. They are quite modern because they are set out in decimal currency. It would appear that in this instance it cannot be said that tremendous cost falls on the promoters, for the fees charged appear to be modest. A sum of £5 is payable en the deposit of a private Bill; £5 is charged for a private Bill to be examined; for a First Reading in the House there is a charge of £15; and for a Second Reading a further charge of £15. If there is a Report stage, another £15 is charged and on the Third Reading the promoters have to pay yet another fee of £15. If there is a seven o'clock motion there is a fee of £25. Therefore, the cost of all this procedure is only £95.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the fee of £25 applies to a debate that begins not at seven o'clock but at ten minutes to eleven?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is an interesting point. If I were a promoter I would seek to challenge a charge put down for a debate that does not start in accordance with that provision in the


Standing Orders. But that is for the promoters to develop in the appropriate place.

Mr. Loughlin: They will need time-and-a-half after midnight.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Indeed.
For this modest charge of £95, the Private Bill Office does an enormous amount of work. If the motion is agreed, an even greater cost will be involved which cannot be recouped. No more special fees will be charged for this special privilege conferred on the promoters. In passing, the fees seem to me scandalously low. They have not been adjusted since 1969, the date of these Standing Orders. I hope that, at some future date, those who take an interest in private legislation will seek to ensure that an economic cost is paid by the promoters—

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: An inflationary cost.

Mr. Wellbeloyed: Of course, if, as a result of Government policy, inflation goes on at its present rate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go further into that matter. It is not related to the motion.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Purely a passing reference, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Inflation is the responsibility of the Government, not of the promoters. Nevertheless, the charges involved are scandalously low, and I give notice that I shall seek an opportunity during the next Session of seeing that the economic cost is paid by the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill if they take advantage of the motion. I do not see why we should give them, first, the privilege of special facilities which are not open either to the Government or to private Members, and, second, do so at enormous cost to the House of Commons Vote. Therefore, it is not for those promoting the Bill to pray in aid the cost. The losers are not the promoters but this House and the general public.
No doubt it will be said that printing and employing counsel involves a much more substantial cost, but that is a legitimate expense for the promoters. We are concerned only with that expenditure

covered by our own Standing Orders. As I hope I have shown, that is a very slim amount of money, and not relevant to a consideration of this matter.
After dealing with the fees, the motion goes on:
… if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
Taken on its own, that paragraph is nonsense. It assumes that a completely new Bill is to be brought down from the other place to this House. But that is not the case. We shall be dealing with a Bill which has had its First and Second Readings and has gone to a Committee dealing with private legislation, and it is a complete fiction to suggest that we are dealing with a new Bill sent from the other place.
How can the promoters comply with that part of the motion? I cannot see how it can be done. It is another reason why the motion should be rejected. It has embodied in it a paragraph which is manifest nonsense and is not capable of being put into operation. One has to dive very deeply into the wording of the motion before one begins to get a glimmer of what it all really means.
I am delighted to see the Chairman of Ways and Means back in the Chair. I will not weary the House by repeating to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the arguments for your benefit. I hope that other hon. Members will be able to develop them with more clarity and eloquence and bring home to you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, the force of these points.
The next sentence in the motion reads:
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
We are in the ludicrous position of erecting a fiction that a new Bill is entering


the House and being given the formality of First and Second Readings and amendment in Committee. It is stretching nonsense to an extraordinary length for us to be asked to do that. If we are going to give, on the nod, First and Second Readings, then we should be able to have the normal process of debate. If the Bill is to go through the House again, let it go through the appropriate procedures and be subject to proper scrutiny.
The motion goes on:
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
Here, an extraordinary financial burden is being placed upon the public. It is not the House of Commons which pays for its own establishment and administration but the taxpayers. And all this is being done to assist the passage of this miserable little Bill.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: That is not fair.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way. He served with great distinction as Chairman of the Committee and I feel it very important that these matters should be properly considered. But if he does not wish to intervene, I am sure he will not wish to continue interrupting from a seated position.
The House will surely agree that it is quite wrong that this extra cost, involving officials and officers of the House, should be borne not by the promoters but by the public through general taxation. That is unacceptable. It needs considerable further investigation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is not to mention the continuing irrecoverable costs to which the petitioners against the Bill are being put by the continuation of processes on a doomed Bill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman will develop that point with great effectiveness when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a most important point to be considered. I want merely to confine myself to the constitutional argument which I have developed. If all this is being done with regard to the procedure and without cost to the promoters, it ought also to be done for Private Members' legislation, because that

is tremendously expensive for the Member concerned and those who assist him.
I come to the final part of the business motion, which states:
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
That is the absolute clincher of the whole of my argument. If passed, the motion gives this special facility and privilege and we shall be changing the whole of Standing Orders. Shall we be doing that for some great public purpose? No. We shall be doing it for the passage of a Bill which is the subject of great contention in the House and in the area concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West opened the debate in his usual style with a clear exposition of the facts and the case as he saw it. He based his case upon a great principle for which men and women have suffered and died and which people will not lightly see laid aside. That is the principle that in this realm it shall be one man, one vote. It is the principle that a person will not be elected to a public office—in the House, on a local authority or as a conservator of the Ashdown Forest—on the basis of the acreage of land that he holds, and that he will not have more or less votes according to that acreage. That is a central issue which, when considered in addition to the other points that have been adduced, shows that there is no case that can possibly justify the House approving the motion.
I have noted that the Chairman of Ways and Means has now resumed the Chair. I assume that from that position he is no longer able to reply to the debate, unless a precedent new in all respects is to be established tonight. It is, however, a matter of great regret, because there is and will be many arguments to answer. Many of the points that have been made have justified an answer. But I shall leave the matter now in the sure knowledge that the House will not allow the motion to go unopposed. If by some stroke of misfortune the principle of one man, one vote is swept aside by the passage of the motion, we shall seek to ensure that the Bill is not passed when it returns to this Chamber.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Your name, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is on the motion, indicating one of your


capacities. Is it within the rules of order for the sponsor of a motion to occupy the Chair during the debate on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point because hon. Members may have been wondering about it.
It is quite normal for the Chairman of Ways and Means to leave his place on the Front Bench and to take a turn in the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back perhaps two years, he will recall that there were only two Deputy Speakers and it would have been necessary for one of them, because perhaps Mr. Speaker could not be present, to be in the Chair for the whole time. It has therefore always been the custom that the Chairman of Ways and Means, although in charge of a Bill, can relieve the other occupant of the Chair for a short time.
That is what I am doing in this case. I do not intend to remain in the Chair for long tonight, but it is only fair that the occupant of the Chair should have a short respite. After that I shall return to the Front Bench. I should not like the House to take that as meaning the I shall take certain action afterwards.
I hope that what I have said satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you are sitting on the Front Bench, are you able to speak as a Member and tell the House on what grounds you are recommending, if you are recommending, the motion or whether the putting of your name to the motion is a formality which in no way implies that you exercised judgment but is an automatic stamp? It is not clear to me whether your name appears there automatically procedurally or whether it is because you exercised the judgment that it should do so. If the latter, will you give the reasons for exercising that judgment from the Front Bench, from the Chair, or not at all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the custom for the Chairman of Ways and Means not to enter into any discussions upon the Bill which he moves. I have to make certain decisions based on listening

to advice and then to make up my mind about what is right in any given circumstances. But the precedents for my not speaking on the Bill are based on immemorial custom of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am now answering the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who is perhaps expecting me to say something at the end. Much as I should like to say something, I would not like to break from the time-honoured precedent that the Chairman should not enter into the merits of the matter. It is plainly better that he should not because it might affect the impartiality of the Chair. He might be involved in discussions in answering the debate, which would be bad for the Chair.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does that mean that a motion can be before the House without anybody having any responsibility to answer the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One must remember that the House is dealing with Private Business. This is not Government Business. No member of the Government is obliged to take part in these debates. Members of the Government come to these debates in order to give the House certain information to help it to come to a decision. This is one instance when the House as a whole is free to come to its own decision about things.
I know that the promoters of a Bill enlist the services of an hon. Member to speak for the Bill, as it were, and no doubt those who are opposed to the Bill get someone to speak for them against it. There is no question of the official mover of the motion having responsibility for the merits of the Bill. It is for the House as a whole to decide whether it wants the Bill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully understand your position and in no way challenge your ruling, but the House is in a difficulty. Hon. Members—and I, too—have given reasons why the motion ought not to be passed. Those reasons have been based upon precedents and Standing Orders, and it will be difficult for hon. Members to make a judgment based upon facts if they are deprived of the opportunity of hearing


the mover of the motion give his reasons for exercising his judgment and carrying out his duty in the way that he has under the Private Bill legislation, and try to satisfy the House that there are sound reasons for the motion.
If it is not possible for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do even that in your capacity of Chairman of Ways and Means, is it not within your ability, when you vacate the Chair and return to the Front Bench, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw your motion? Or is that prohibited by the custom and practice of your office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am as sure as I can be that that is precluded by the custom and practice of my office. A situation similar to that which exists tonight has arisen on many occasions when promoters of Bills have sought to have them carried over into the next Session. When that has happened, my predecessors have made up their minds on the merits of the case and decided whether or not to accept the motion, but they have not given their reasons for so doing even though, I have no doubt, arguments similar to those which have been advanced tonight were put to them.
I do not feel that I should be justified in breaking with what has become a time-honoured precedent. If the hon. Member for Edith and Crayford feels that that is a harsh judgment, I recommend that he should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities and, if necessary, get it laid down in Standing Orders that in these cases the Chairman of Ways and Means should, if necessary, give his reasons for what he has done. As matters stand, I feel that I must abide by the custom which my predecessors have honoured from time immemorial.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is this additional difficulty, that, so far as I am aware, on every other occasion when an hon. Member has introduced a similar motion, he has listened to the debate, and if he has been satisfied that the weight of opinion is against the motion he has saved the time of the House by withdrawing it. Accepting that custom and practice interdict you from commenting on the merits, are you interdicted from withdrawing

the motion at any stage, or is it doomed to roll on and on, consuming more and more of the time of the House when it is evident that the vast majority of those who have listened to the debate and who have taken part in it are against the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right in the last part of his observations. We just have to roll on.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your usual courteous fashion you answered my earlier point by suggesting that if I or other hon. Members believe that the custom and practice act harshly upon our point of view we should seek to change the Standing Orders. That is very sound advice.
To assist the desire among the authorities of the House for a change of Standing Order, would it be in order during the next Session of Parliament for an hon. Member like myself—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot take that point of order because I cannot discuss or consider anything that might take place in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I withdraw "next Session" and say "in the remaining days of this Session". Would it be in order for an hon. Member to oppose all future private legislation in this Session so that a situation would be created such that there would be a virtual standstill on Private Business of this nature and considerable inconvenience caused to Government and Opposition in respect of the time that has to be set down by you under your duties for the discharge of this business? Would that be a method, within the rules of order, by which an hon. Member could seek to bring about such a fundamental change in this most unsatisfactory situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we have less than 48 hours remaining of this Session, I should think it is most unlikely.

12.37 a.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I am very glad to be able to catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) was not correct, though he was very nearly correct, when he


apparently thought that Ashdown Forest lay in my constituency.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I did not think that.

Sir T. Beamish: It makes no difference; it is a small point. The northern boundary of my constituency is only about three miles south of the southern edge of Ashdown Forest. I live on the forest and I am a commoner. It goes without saying that I care deeply about the forest and its conservation and that I look very carefully at any proposals for its future management.
I am very strongly in favour of the House passing the motion. I regard the Bill presented by the East Sussex County Council as a most excellent one. The House should know that the Bill has the support of all the Sussex Members of the House, those from East Sussex and from West Sussex.
I have been told today that the Bill has the strong support of an ex-colleague of ours, Mr. Dennis Hobden, who was the Member for Kemptown and is now the Leader of the Labour Group on the East Sussex County Council. Therefore, the Bill is completely non-party in character and has all-party support. That is one reason why I believe that the House should pass the motion.
I want to give a few more reasons.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Sir T. Beamish: No, the hon. Gentleman has filibustered quite enough already. I wish to make my speech.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has just accused my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) of filibustering. Is not filibustering a breach of order, since it implies tedious repetition and deliberate obstruction? My hon. Friend spoke for only 10 or 12 minutes, and is it not an unwarranted allegation by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my hon. Friend has been filibustering?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Gentleman knows that the word is not out of order, and he is in as good a position as most to

know whether there has been any waste of time.

Sir T. Beamish: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has himself been guilty of a disgraceful filibuster in which he deliberately delayed the passage of this measure by talking for as long as he could and saying absolutely nothing.
There is another reason why I hope that the House will pass the motion. Ashdown Forest is an area of great ecological importance. It is of great interest to naturalists from all over this country, and many from abroad as well. I am president of the Sussex Trust for Nature Conservation. We recently discussed the Bill and we were unanimously of opinion that it is an excellent measure in every way.
That is another reason why I hope that the motion will be passed, so that the Bill, the purpose of which is to make sure that Ashdown Forest remains an area of peace and pleasure, with adequate funds for the purpose, will be carried into law. People not only from Sussex but from all over the country will through that means be assured of being able to enjoy Ashdown Forest to the greatest possible extent.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West complained about the voting system incorporated in the Bill, and his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford made the same complaint four or five times. Let us look at that, since it is apparently in order to discuss the merits of the Bill in this way. If it has been criticised, others may support the voting system. I shall not go into great detail, but, if it is said that the voting system proposed is wrong and objectionable, I take it that, in the normal cut and thrust of debate, one may answer that point. I shall be brief, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be quick to tell me if I go out of order.
In Schedule 1 provision is made for commoners to change the voting system. Twenty-one days' notice has to be given of any meeting, and they may then meet together and decide to change the system. Thereafter, a period of 28 days has to elapse during which any other commoners will have time to make their views known if they do not like the system which has been proposed.
I want the House to know—this is in direct answer to the point made—that all commoners were circulated in June with a questionnaire sent out by the clerk to the conservators, and by the middle of July two-thirds of them had replied saying that they strongly favoured the new voting system based on forest rates. Out of the 66 per cent. who replied, by 10 to 1 they favoured the new suggested system. Thus, it is right to say that the overwhelming majority of the commoners are not at all unhappy about the Bill as regards voting. They are satisfied. It is grossly misleading of hon. Members opposite to suggest that anything else is the case.
To oppose the motion and refuse to allow the Bill to be carried forward to the next Session would be to frustrate the views not only of the organisations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) referred but of the East Sussex County Council, all the Sussex Members of Parliament, as I said, of the Uckfield Rural District Council—in which area Ashdown Forest lies and which originally had objections, all of which have been withdrawn—of all the parish councils in the area, of the great majority of the commoners themselves, of the Board of Conservators of Ashdown Forest and of the Friends of Ashdown Forest. If this filibuster were successful, it would frustrate the views of all those people. I want that to be clearly understood.
My hon. Friend the Member lot Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who is an opponent of the Bill for reasons which I have been quite unable to ascertain, mentioned to me recently that the new Weald authority which is to be created from the Uckfield Rural District and the Hailsham Rural District Council is opposed to the Bill. Perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening to me for a moment. I can tell him that only a few days ago three councillors who take a special interest in the forest and are authorised to speak on behalf of this authority met a conservator of the Forest and said that they wanted the Bill to be a success. I hope that my hon. Friend will get his facts right in future. It is clear that if the Bill's passage is frustrated by its being talked out, which is the intention, it will be flying in the face of the overwhelming majority of

opinion throughout Sussex and in this House.
I conclude by saying that I regard further opposition to the Bill as unwarranted, irresponsible and frivolous. I very much hope that the few opponents of the Bill, having had their say, will let Parliament carry it forward to the next Session.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: Although every hon. Member will probably agree that opponents of a Private Bill may use all possible opportunities to oppose it, there must come a time when the House has to come to a decision. Nothing that I have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has satisfied me that they have advanced any valid reason why we should not support the motion for carrying over the Bill.
I listened with great care—as I always do—to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, who has spent a good deal of time studying matters that are quite extraneous to the motion. He displayed a woeful ignorance of the substantial difference between Public Bills and Private Bills. When he sought to draw an analogy between this Bill and the ordinary business of the House he should appreciate that the Government have control of their business but the promoters of Private Bills have to go through the most detailed and restrictive procedures. The promoters of the Bill have followed all the procedures, and it is not their fault that the Bill has not completed all its stages. I suggest that as we cannot deal with the Report stage and Third Reading the promoters are quite entlitled to take advantage of the carry-over provisions that exist for this type of legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, who objects to this procedure, might like to know that this was not always so. In the past, Private Bills of this character were killed at the end of the Session. It was the House itself that said that if a Private Bill had complied with all the Standing Orders of the House, if it had gone through a Select Committee, and if all the expense involved in getting it to that stage had been


borne, the promoters should be protected if the House itself, for other reasons, could not complete it. Therefore, it is right that the promoters should take advantage of the provision introduced for the very purpose of dealing with a situation of this character.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The House will be greatly interested in this point, namely, that it was because of the difficulties experienced by the promoters of Private Bills that Parliament changed Standing Orders. I should like to study that in detail. Will my hon. Friend give me a little more detail about the Session in which that change of procedure occurred?

Mr. Johnson: Not now.
Secondly, it would be very regrettable if the reflections of my hon. Friends who have opposed the Bill should be seen to have any support in the House. To refer to this as a "miserable little Bill" is to use parliamentary language quite inappropriate for serious discussion.
When one analyses the very lengthy and erudite speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), its substance is: "Let us kill the Bill tonight". All the arguments were used to bolster up a plea to the House that we ought to kill the Bill tonight and that the promoters should be asked to promote another Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
My hon. Friend then proceeded, as had my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, to present his main objection to the Bill which, as was indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), is that the Bill does not provide a particular system of voting by the commoners that my hon. Friend favours. That is the gravamen of the objection to the Bill.
If the Bill were killed tonight and an entirely new Bill were introduced next Session, the promoters could not embody that provision in the legislation. It is not within their power to interfere with the rights of commoners.
The Select Committee went as far as it could go by saying that, if the commoners would agree amongst themselves upon a change, all the procedures would be available for it to be made.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. Certainly into a new Bill could be written what should have been written into this one before it was introduced into Parliament. The dilemma in which the Committee found itself was due to the way that the Bill was drafted. The Bill having been introduced, the Committee could not amend it in the way that it wished. However, there is nothing to stop the promoters of the Bill introducing it in a form which embodies what is required.

Mr. Johnson: It would also not be appropriate for the promoters, a local authority, to decide what the procedure should be. The procedure for voting having been laid down, it would have been quite inappropriate for the promoters to change it. If the promoters had sought to do that my hon. Friends would have risen in great objection. They would have wanted to know why a local authority should be allowed to make a change of that character. It was never possible for the promoters to introduce a measure of that kind.
I think that this motion should be passed as a matter of some urgency. There are two main grounds for this Bill. First, it will afford a proper financial basis for the operation of the forest and, secondly, it will provide for adequate management of it to meet the needs of the constituents from the areas represented by hon. Members who have opposed it. Therefore, it would be undesirable to put further difficulties in the way of this Bill reaching the Statute Book.
Finally, although my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford sought to brush this point aside, a substantial amount of public money has been spent in getting the Bill to its present stage. We have also had the opportunity of arguing on the merits of the Bill in this House. Indeed, we sent it to a Select Committee to make sure that it was properly in order. Certain changes were made, and those have been accepted by the promoters. Therefore, we now have a measure that can be commended to the House, and the sooner we approve this carry-over motion the better.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: My task tonight is regrettably prolonged


by the somewhat bizarre intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. That intervention took the form of quoting to the House an inappropriate section from an obsolete volume of Erskine May. Having done that, he has apparently disappeared for the evening.
For the rectification of many distortions that may have crept in, I would read to the House from the current edition of Erskine May; that is to say, the 18th Edition—one of the two Table copies—page 821, the section which is headed,
Private Bills Pass Through Same Stages As Public Bills.
The House will recollect that the gravamen of the irrelevant advice given by the junior Minister with some trepidation, because he did not even know where it appeared in Erskine May, was that if a Bill had passed its Third Reading—which it has not—we should facilitate its further passage by the adoption of this motion. It was clear that the Under-Secretary was unaware that not only had the Bill not passed its Third Reading but it had not even undergone its Report stage. Even had the copy of Erskine May been up to date—which it was not—the section which he read to the House was inappropriate.
What is appropriate, however, is to be found on page 821 with the heading which I have already given, and which reads thus:
Although private bills are examined and contested as private suits before committees and officers of the House, and are subject to notices, forms, and intervals unusual in other bills, yet in every separate stage, when they come before either House, they are treated as if they were public bills, although separate hours are allotted for their discussion.
There is a footnote "(q)", which reads:
For private bills imposing charges, see 897.
I continue:
They are read as many times and similar questions are put, except when any proceeding is especially directed by the standing orders, and in general the same rules of debate and procedure are maintained throughout.
In the same way, if any proceeding on a private bill is postponed on motion for three or six months, such postponement is equivalent to a rejection of the bill and no new bill

for the same object may be introduced that session.
The first question that therefore arises is this: is there a Standing Order which "especially directs" that this Private Bill now before the House should be treated in a different manner from a Public Bill? There is no such Standing Order giving any such direction. The advice of Erskine May therefore stands, that we should treat this Bill as we would treat a Public Bill.
It does not lie with the House to carry a Public Bill over to the nest Session. There are good reason for this. It may cause some annoyance; it way cause a waste of Ministerial and other time. But the House has always up until now accepted that the advantage of clearing the legislative system, so to speak, by pulling the chain on any undigested matter at the end of each Session is a necessary precursor to the generation and passage of new legislation in a new Session of Parliament. If the Government or the House wished to change this rule on public general Bills, they have been at liberty to do so and they are at liberty to do so, and they have not chosen to exercise that liberty to do so. The advice of Erskine May is that
they are treated as if they were public bills, although separate hours are allotted for their discussion.
Indeed, they are. So far as Erskine May is concerned, the advice given so persuasively and unambiguously in the 18th edition, which is entirely appropriate to the situation in which we now find ourselves, is that we should resist any such temptation, however alluring might he the reasons adduced by my two hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson.)
Regrettably, the temptation has not been resisted, and this motion has appeared on the Order Paper—the motion that we should treat this Bill in a way in which we can treat no public general Bill. The case that needs to be proved, therefore, is the case for abandoning the sage advice given in Erskine May and adopting a procedure for this Bill which we reject for every public Bill. The onus is certainly not on Members of the House to defend the proposition that this motion should be defeated. The onus is entirely the other way. We have listened with symapthetic impotence, because we sympathise so much with the mover of


this motion, that he is by his office prohibited from telling us what were his reasons for moving it.
Three colleagues on both sides of the House have advanced the fact that they wish to see this Bill on the statute book as a reason why we should reject the advice given in Erskine May and why we should not treat this Bill in the same way as we treat most important public Bills which die because a Session comes to an end. However much they may wish to see this Bill on the statute book, their devotion to its cause is no greater than the devotion of many other hon. Members to many public general Bills of much greater importance to a much larger number of people in this country and which are denied passage into statute law because, for instance, three hours is consumed tonight in debating this totally inappropriate motion.
In Committee the hands of the Committee were substantially tied by the terms in which this Bill was drafted. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) referred to the expenditure of public money; by that I take it that he meant the county council's money—

Sir T. Beamish: I never mentioned it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned public money that would be wasted if the Bill died.

Sir T. Beamish: I never mentioned public money at all.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It must have been my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). The point is not relevant, for this reason. Before the Bill was even introduced into the Lords I warned the parliamentary agent acting for the promoters—I warned him in front of a witness—that the Bill was extremely unlikely to pass through this House unless and until it was altered to encompass equal voting. I gave him that warning at a time when it lay within his power to advise his clients so to alter the Bill before it was introduced.
I gave that advice to the parliamentary agent at a time when it was not too late to be taken. I do not know whether he personally advised the promoters to adopt that course and they rejected his

advice or whether he did not give them that advice, in which case he is party to wasting public money. But that advice was given. It was not taken. As a result, the position in which the pro-motors find themselves is of their making or of their parliamentary agents making. It is not of my making. It is not of the making of the Committee which examined the Bill. It is of the making of the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Surely this point was the main feature in the debate on Second Reading, and the House did not accept the argument.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As the hon. Gentleman knows, on Second Reading it is often argued, whatever case is adduced, that the matter should be left to the Committee and that that is where the lawyers can argue it. There is some substance in such an approach if the Bill is so drafted that the Committee can exercise its judgment and amend it. The whole point about this Bill is that it was drafted in such a way as to deprive the Committee of that essential power. All that the Committee could do within the Standing Orders of the House was to insert what now appears as Schedule 1, paragraph 1 (d), which reads:
If the Secretary of State or the arbitrator, as the case may be, determines in accordance with sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph that the objection to the resolution is upheld, the resolution shall be ineffective but if he determines that it is overruled, the resolution shall be effective from the date of such determination.
That was as much as the Committee could do, not because it was as much as it wanted to do but because it was as much as the drafting of the Bill enabled it to do.
If we revivify the Bill, which would otherwise die a decent death, we are prolonging the life of a Bill which in the next Session will retain the same inbuilt and avoidable but not avoided defects as those that it has in this Session. Postponing the Bill and carrying it over until the next Session does not by some magic salve remove this deformity from it. There is no known way of removing the deformity.
That is why it should never have been introduced in this form and why it should not be prolonged into another Session.


That is a guaranteed way of wasting parliamentary time, the promoters' money and the objectors' and petitioners' money, enriching only parliamentary counsel and parliamentary agents.

Sir T. Beamish: Schedule 1 lays down clearly that the commoners can decide on what system of voting they wish to adopt. Who is my hon. Friend to tell them what system to adopt? Why cannot my hon. Friend leave it to them and mind his own business?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My lion. and gallant Friend asks why I cannot mind my own business. It is the business of every hon. Member when a section of the community comes to this House asking that an exception should be made to the public general law of the land. That is what a Private Bill is. Incidentally, as my hon. and gallant Friend apparently has forgotten, unlike Public Bill procedure, Members who have a constituency interest in a Public Bill are precluded from sitting on the Committee which examines it. Of course, if a Member speaks on Second Reading of a Public Bill, it is more than likely that the Committee of Selection will appoint him to the Standing Committee which examines the Bill. Standing Orders on Private Bills provide—if Standing Orders do not, Erskine May does—that a Member will not be appointed to the Standing Committee if that Member speaks on Second Reading and if he has a constituency interest.
The whole of Private Bill procedure is slanted to the proposition that those who have an interest are least qualified to judge the issue and that those who have no interest, personal or constituency, in the outcome are best qualified to judge.

Sir T. Beamish: I said in my speech that a substantial majority of commoners have already agreed to a new voting system proposed by the clerk to the conservators. Who does my hon. Friend think he is to tell the commoners how they should vote?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have not told the commoners how they should vote. I am proposing that the Bill should be withdrawn and another Bill introduced with the same system of voting as is to be found in any other civilised body. I

do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has read the proceedings of the Committee, but the line which he follows was followed by the counsel appearing for the promoters of the Bill. In page 2 of the fifth section of the report of the Committee, counsel appearing for the promoters at Question No. 8 asked Mr. Walter Keith Oliver this question:
If one man one vote were imposed in the Bill, of course, no such opportunity would be given?
That would be an opportunity for the commoners to say which system of voting they wanted. Counsel continued:
That must be right, must it not? If one man one vote were to be imposed by the Bill, no such opportunity would be given to those who might be of a contrary view to state their case?
That is counsel's question. That is counsel's way of putting the same question that my hon. and gallant Friend has just put. Mr. Oliver answered:
No opportunity was given to the commoners to discuss this matter before the Bill was deposited.
That was the right time for the promoters of the Bill to show an interest.

Sir T. Beamish: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall continue with the first point that my hon. and gallant Friend raised before dealing with anything else which he wants to raise. Counsel then asked:
Just answer the question, Mr. Oliver. If a voting system is imposed by this Bill, it gives no opportunity for those who may quite sincerely be of an opposite view to state their case, does it?
Mr. Oliver replied:
You will forgive me for appearing not to answer you directly, sir, because it does not seem to me that ' yes' or no' is appropriate in this case. May I say that"—
Counsel said:
Say whatever you like, Mr. Oliver, but I shall go on asking the question until I get an answer.
Mr. Oliver replied:
May I give a little further explanation?
Counsel said, "Please do." In a nut shell, this is the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend. Mr. Oliver said:
One man one vote, as I mentioned yesterday, has been accepted, I think, since 1832 as the method of electing members to public bodies of all kinds.


We are talking about a public body—namely, the conservators. Mr. Oliver continued.
I said yesterday that I could see no difference between the election of the conservators of Ashdown Forest and the election of a member of a parish council. We are not nowadays"—

Sir T. Beamish: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend disagrees with Mr. Oliver's opinion, but I happen to think that it is reasonable.
We are not nowadays given an opportunity of arguing whether one man one vote in parliamentary elections is the best possible method.

Mr. Carol Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is going deeply into the merits of the Bill. He is anticipating the debate which will take place next Session when the report is before the House. Those of us who have spoken in the past have made only passing reference to the merits, but the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make a detailed examination of the main basis of opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I am sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will draw to a conclusion his remarks in that respect.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: You can be sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall stay in order. If the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) had spent more time in the Chamber during the debate, he would have noted what the Chair has considered to be in order. As he has only visited the Chamber quite recently, he would do well to hold his peace and rely on the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would get on with his speech.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That I am endeavouring to do.

Mr. Carol Johnson: The hon. Gentleman must be unaware that I have been sitting in my place since the debate started.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In that case it is incomprehensible that he has not noted the ruling on this point given by the

Chair and particularly that the Chair has already allowed extensive debate, for instance, on Schedule 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton will not carry on for too long with his lecture of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson).

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, but it was the hon. Gentleman's intervention that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman get on with his speech?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, I will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have finished by now but for the intervention of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South.
The evidence continues:
We are not nowadays given an opportunity of arguing whether one man one vote in parliamentary elections is the best possible method. I am sure some people do not think it is. But I can see nothing wrong in introducing the same method of election to the conservators of Ashdown Forest as is the rule for every other election of which I am aware.
I do not think I could have put more succinctly the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes than was put to the Select Committee in the evidence which I have just quoted. The nub of the objection to the Bill is concerned with that.
We must concern ourselves with two questions: first, what are the results which follow if this motion is passed, and secondly what are the results which follow if this motion is not passed? That in a nutshell is what presumably will determine how we vote in the Lobby. If the motion is passed, it is open to the promoters of the Bill to instruct their parliamentary agent to give notice not later than Thursday to the Private Bill Office that they intend to operate that suspension, that notice being effective only if they have paid their fees up to date. We do not know—because none of those speaking for the promoters have told us—whether at this stage the promoters have decided whether they would exercise that right, but we must assume that they probably would.
On the assumption that they probably would, the Bill would be carried over


into the next Session of Parliament. We do not know whether the next Session of Parliament will be the last of this Parliament. We know that the Bill would come into this House in exactly the same form as it left the Select Committee because under the motion which we are now debating it cannot come back unless there is a certificate from one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office certifying that it is in exactly the same form as it was when it left this House. Therefore, any defects that the Bill has now it will have then.
It is therefore unavoidable that, in considering the motion, we should consider this question, does the Bill have such inherent and incorrigible defects that to prolong its life into the next Parliament would merely be to waste Parliamentary time? If the answer to that question is, "Yes", the motion should be defeated. But even if some hon. Members believe, as they may, that the Bill's defects, although glaring, are not such as to render it totally unacceptable in another Session, that does not substantiate the case for rejecting the advice in Erskine May on page 821 to which I have referred—that we should not treat a Private Bill differently from a Public Bill.
Since Erskine May was prayed in aid in the rather bizarre speech of my hon. Friend, this point must be seized by all who wish to participate in this debate. No contrary advice has been given to the House on the precedents quoted in Erskine May. Even if it were thought that, without the assistance of Erskine May, there might still be some merit in suspending the Bill until the next Session, is it good practice that we should adopt a procedure of always passing these motions almost "on the nod"?
If we do, with the efflux of time, they will acquire what they do not now have—a prescriptive right to be passed. Possibly they may be debated, but the day will come when the occupant of the Chair will have to advise the House that the practice has now developed so that, when such a motion has been put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the House ought to agree to it.
There are many things which, because they have happened for some time, achieve exactly this sort of momentum. To take an analogy, there is an interdic-

tion in Erskine May on hon. Members reading speeches, yet if any hon. Member complains to the Chair that another hon. Member is reading his speech, instead of enforcing the Standing Order, the Chair replies that the hon. Member is "making copious use of notes". I took up this very point with Mr. Speaker King. He wrote to me that, although the Standing Order indeed prohibited the reading of speeches—

Sir T. Beamish: What has this to do with the motion?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Each time my hon. and gallant Friend intervenes, he prolongs the proceedings. This is a very general rule.
Mr. Speaker King replied that, although the Standing Order interdicted the reading of speeches, the Chair had so often refused to enforce the Standing Order that the practice had now acquired such a status that it would take a new resolution of the House to reactivate the Standing Order, although it appeared clearly in the blue book. Therefore—I will now satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend's curiosity—the relevance is this: a case has been put that motions of this kind ought to be passed merely because they have been moved, not because of any inherent merit. This was the case which a Minister of the Crown took the trouble to put, with his irrelevant quotations from an obsolete copy of Erskine May. His case was that because the motion had been moved we ought to pass it.
I am pointing out the very great danger of allowing that to happen. So far from it being an accumulated custom of the House that it should always pass motions of this kind merely because they have been moved, it is particularly incumbent upon the House to ensure that this situation which has not yet come about should not come about and must not come about.
What are the dangers which face us if we allow this motion to pass, quite apart from the merits of the Bill whose life it would prolong? Every time there is a motion of this kind, potentially a considerable amount of parliamentary time is consumed. Moreover, motions of this kind are moved only in the dying days of a Session—that is why they are


moved. It is in the dying days of a Session that parliamentary time is most precious because there are other measures for which this privilege is not suggested and to which the privilege of surviving into an afterlife in another Session is not given.
If the House does not put its foot down, we shall grow into the position where, whenever sloppily-drafted, badly-presented and inadequately-argued Private Bills get themselves into trouble in Committee, so that they get later and later and later, we are asked when they finally fall from Committee to the Floor of the House, to stop all our normal business and entertain motions of this kind. That I regard as a very great danger to our parliamentary system because it puts in jeopardy in a way which cannot be remedied by similar motions so much other work which has been done by Parliament in that Session.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that about the only justification for a suspension motion of this nature would be where we were facing a General Election and the promoters of private legislation were, through no fault of their own or of the drafting of the bill or of its principles, put at a serious disadvantage? Apart from such circumstances, there is no justification for this type of motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I go a long way with that argument. But I recommend to the House that we should make certain rules for ourselves and adopt certain tests, and if a motion of this kind does not pass these tests, then automatically the House should not entertain it and the Chairman of Ways and Means should not even bother to table it. I should like to put this motion to those tests.
First, does the lateness of the Bill in the parliamentary Session, necessitating, if it is to be enacted, a motion of this kind, arise from any act or default on the part of the promoters? If it does, certainly we should not hold up our other business to dig them out of their own pit. In this case it does arise from an act or default of the promoters. They were warned of the consequences of introducing the Bill with not only a par-

ticular unacceptable provision in it but one which could not subsequently be remedied.
What action did they then take? They did not take the only effective action that they could have taken. They just let things go on in the hope that it would be all right on the day. The day has come now. This is the day of reckoning. This is the time when the inherent defects in the Bill have so delayed it in Committee, apart from anything else, that there is simply not time, under the Standing Orders of the House, for the notice which has to be given after Report stage before Third Reading can come and for the Bill to reach the Statute Book in this Session.
There is no action which any of us can take, or which the Government could take if they were so minded, to have the Bill receive its Third Reading in this Session. That is how late it has got. As I have said, it has reached this position because of the manner in which it was handled by the promoters.
The second test which we should apply in general, but in particular now to the motion, is whether, by consuming in this case three hours of Parliament's time on debating the motion, there is any other business yet to come which is being postponed by this consumption of time. Manifestly, from the Order Paper, there is. That is another reason why the motion should never have been moved in the first place. If hon. Members are in agreement that the motion should never have been moved but, nevertheless, allow it to be passed, they will have established a precedent, that even when they disagree with a motion they allow it to be passed. That is another precedent which we ought not to establish on the basis of any decision which the House arrives at tonight.
There are more tests. We do not want to judge this matter in isolation. The same tests that we apply to this motion we should apply to similar motions on similar occasions. If we do not, this is a practice which will grow. Private Bills will tend to come later and later in the Session, for a number of reasons. I have alluded to the fact that a number of Members are disqualified from being put by the Committee of Selection on the Select Committee to examine a Bill but


would be qualified to go on the Standing Committee to examine a Public Bill. There has been a great increase in the number of Select Committees set up by the House which must be manned.
All these events make it increasingly likely that in future we shall have not less but greater pressure for motions of this kind. Therefore, unless we want our other business to be swamped, the tests which we apply before we allow this exceptional course of action to take place need to be made more stringent. I believe that it is the feeling of the majority of those present in the Chamber that even the lax application of tests of this kind should result in discouragement of motions like this. Nevertheless, although the promoters of the Bill and everyone else concerned wore aware of its defects, they have soldiered on and have made the House, late art night, entertain this business, with other business to come.
There is only one effective way of discouraging that process. If the House does not adopt and maintain this effective check, I predict that next Session it will be increasingly overwhelmed with Private Bills of this kind. The nearer we get to the end of a Session, the greater is the temptation to hurry in Private Bills, because the make-up of an existing Parliament in terms of political parties is known whereas the political complexion of a future Parliament is, by definition, unknown.
This motion does not pass any of the tests which I have suggested should be applied to all such motions. If it were passed, it would still further reduce the chance of other Private Bills in the next Session because presumably it would go ahead of the queue of Private Bills properly introduced next Session. By passing this motion, we shall prejudice the status of Private Bills introduced next Session. If not, it is not worth passing it. If passing this motion does not give the Bill precedence in the next Session, it is purposeless to pass it.
No one has produced advice from Erskine May to contradict the advice which I have read to the House.

Mr. Loughlin: On the question of the Bill's receiving precedence over other Bills, may I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the third paragraph of the

motion which says that under certain conditions the Bill shall be taken as having received a First and Second Reading and completed its Committee stage? In that sense, the Bill is bound to have precisely the precedence to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having, with his great knowledge of procedure, succinctly summarised what is inherent in the motion. His intervention confirms the fears that I was entertaining, namely, that Private Bills, the merits of which we do not know because they have not been deposited though they could scarcely be worse in the sense of inherent defects than this measure—are to be sacrificed to the interests of a Bill of whose defects we are aware. I do not think that we should entertain the proposition of granting to the defective an unnatural preference over the putative perfection of the yet undeposited. I add that as the fourth test which we ought to apply not only to this motion but to any similar motion before the House.
That leads me to a fifth test which I think we ought to apply, and it is this. Ought we to pass into law—I say that because if the motion is defeated the Bill will not become law—a measure of this kind which, theoretically, will receive the Royal Assent during the next Session at about the time that the whole system of local government is reorganised. I make that point because local authorities are among the promoters of the Bill, and they will become different in form during the currency of the next predictable Session of Parliament. On 1st April next year, the new first and second-tier system of local government comes into operation. The second-tier authorities, in particular, have not yet been able to function normally.
This point is not applicable generally to Private Bills, because not all such Bills are concerned with, or are the concern of, local authorities, but it is my view that, in so far as local authorities have a major legitimate interest in the outcome of a Private Bill, we should not take exceptional steps to bring about the situation that authorities which are about to come into existence do so too late to affect the outcome, whether or not the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
Quite apart from the fact that a local authority is among the promoters of the Bill, under this measure it is a local authority which appoints a majority of the conservators. That is a major feature of the Bill. How can it reasonably be said that we should prolong the life of the Bill in such a manner that the newly composed local authorities are prevented from debating and influencing it in embryo?
If we take the alternative course, if we say that we will not pass the motion, we bring great advantage in that sphere. It is reasonable to assume that if we do not pass the motion a new Bill on the subject would not have received the Royal Assent by 1st April of next year. The result would be that the newly constituted local authorities which come into existence on 1st April would be enabled themselves to decide whether they wanted to reintroduce a Bill of this kind but shorn of its unacceptable defects.
If the junior Minister from the Department of the Environment were still here after his somewhat strange intervention, I would have asked him if the Government take the view that, after all the work which he, his fellow Ministers and the House of Commons have done on the Local Government Bill, amending it and passing it into law, we should then deprive it of the power to influence private legislation of this kind.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

NORTHERN IRELAND (LAND COMPENSATION)

1.46 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.
The object of the order is to apply to Northern Ireland the provisions of the Land Compensation Act which became law in May, 1973. The Land Compensation Act gave effect to proposals contained in the White Paper "Development and Compensation—Putting People First", Cmnd. 5124, and provided a number of new entitlements and safeguards for those landowners and tenants finding their private interests affected by public developments.
When the White Paper was published the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland indicated in his statement issued on 18th October 1972 that, although not directly covered by the White Paper, the changes recommended would be adopted in Northern Ireland and that the aim would be to ensure that such changes would take effect in Northern Ireland at the same time as in Great Britain.
There were difficulties involved in trying to make what was then the Land Compensation Bill fit the differing circumstances of Northern Ireland law. It was therefore decided that the extension of the provisions contained in the then Bill to acquisitions under Northern Ireland legislation by Northern Ireland authorities should be done by an Order in Council.
In fact, this order matches the Land Compensation Act as closely as possible and differs significantly from it only in two respects. The first is that a number of the blight provisions in the Land Compensation Act had already been incorporated into Northern Ireland law in the Planning and Land Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Only the additional changes contained in the Land Compensation Act needed to be included in Part VI of this order, for example, the provision enabling the personal representatives of deceased persons to serve blight notices.
The second difference, an important difference, is that the opportunity has been taken in Articles 65 and 66 of the order to obtain compulsory acquisition powers for the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance, through its works division, provides or acquires buildings and, where necessary, suitable sites, for all Northern Ireland Government Departments. This mirrors the function of the Department of the Environment here, except that the Department of the Environment has vesting powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Section 113, and the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland does not. The Ministry of Finance does have power to purchase or to take on lease by agreement any land required for the purpose of any powers or duties of the Ministry for the administration of any public service in Northern Ireland, but in practice this is a procedure which can result, and does result at present, in considerable delays and difficulties in acquiring sites at reasonable prices.
That is a matter of some concern, and it explains why it is felt necessary to add Articles 65 and 66 to what is in other respects no more than legislation matching the Land Compensation Act.
The Government are committed to enhancing the quality of everyday life in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom. In so doing, a balance must constantly be struck between the overriding duty of the State to ensure that essential developments are undertaken for the benefit of the whole community and the no less compelling need to protect the interests of those whose personal rights or private property may be injured in the process.
This is an important order. I believe that it will help to enhance the quality of life in Northern Ireland, and I commend it to the House.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the Minister said, the order has as its prime purpose the application of the Land Compensation Act to Northern Ireland. The Act received the Royal Assent in May this year. We on this side did not oppose it then, though we tried to improve it, and, on that principle, we do not intend to oppose the order tonight.
Before coming to several points of concern to Northern Ireland, I wish to say that if there are any other aspects of the land problem in Northern Ireland not touched by the order, which mirrors completely—with one or two additions—the Act which went through this House earlier this year, I know that it would be the wish of the Opposition that they should be the subject of a measure in the new Assembly. That would be the appropriate place to discuss the problems of Northern Ireland. Given our procedures here, and given the problems in Northern Ireland, in my view adequate discussion cannot possibly be conducted in this House by English, Scottish and Welsh Members.
I come now to the questions arising on the order before us. It is important that there be a major publicity campaign making clear the provisions of the order and that the procedures for claiming compensation be kept as simple and cheap as possible. Even under our Land Compensation Act, only now is the publicity campaign beginning. Those of us with motorways in our constituencies, for example, know how important it is that people should know their rights. When any piece of legislation confers rights on people, it is necessary to communicate those rights to those who are liable to be able to exercise them.
Under the present order, the need for publicity is even greater, for two reasons. As I read it, some of its provisions apply with retrospective effect. First, the right to claim compensation will extend to damage from works brought into use since 17th October 1969. Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland have recently experienced the reorganisation of both their regional and their local government. In this situation many individuals are unclear as to their rights and how to claim them. Therefore, may we be reassured on the question of publicity and procedures?
My next point relates to the total cost of the package of measures. In the debate earlier this year on the Land Compensation Bill it was said that the new measures would cost about £65 million in a normal full year for England, Wales and Scotland. In practice, because of the grant arrangements, about £40 million will be carried by central Government, £12 million by local authorities and


£3 million by other statutory undertakings. What are the comparable figures for Northern Ireland? If the Minister does not have them at his fingertips I shall he happy to receive them in written form. What is liable to be the total cost in a full year, and how will the cost be spread?
I want to turn to a particular development in Northern Ireland which will presumably involve the application of some of the major provisions of the order, namely, the question of compensation. I refer to the Belfast ring road. In the first place, this is the responsibility of the new Belfast District Council. However, final responsibility now rests with the Ministry of Development, although—I think I am right in saying—the order seems to be sponsored by the Ministry of Finance, and as this has a bearing, however tenuous, on the question whether this is an excepted or a reserve measure, I should like some clarity on that point. Final responsibility seems to rest with the Ministry of Development, and until power is devolved to the new Assembly that means that final responsibility rests here, at Westminster.
The Belfast ring road was launched in 1961. There are three phases. Phase 1 links the MI and the M2; phase 2 links the M2 and the Sydenham bypass; phase 3 completes the circle from Queen's Island to Shaftesbury Square. Last year the plan for phase 1 was finally approved by the Ministry of Development and tenders were put out for the construction of the highway.
The economic and social costs of the ring road are enormous, and there are serious doubts whether it will meet the real traffic needs of the city. Criticism of the plan crosses the sectarian divide, since the highway will pass 50 feet or so from some Divis Street flats and one of the proposed ancillary link roads would completely destroy the Sandy Row shopping centre.
At its first meeting, on 1st October of this year, the Belfast District Council voted by 27 votes to 8 for a motion asking the Government to reconsider their transportation policy for the city and to allow time for further discussion of alternatives to the urban motorway complex. The motion was tabled by David Cook of the Alliance Party and Harry

Fletcher of Sandy Row. It had the support of the NILP and the SDLP and others—including, I have no doubt, the DUP. The fact that I can reel off such a list of bodies supporting a motion is quite something in Northern Ireland.
When the Government consider the ring road in the context of this order—and this brings my remarks into order —which implements legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom, they will see that it will give rise to sizeable compensation. It is important that we should take the opportunity of examining what the Government propose to pay compensation on. I believe that when they reconsider the question of the ring road they should bear in mind the views put forward on an all-party basis in Belfast. They should consider changing phase 1 so that the MI and the M2 are linked by a smaller highway at some point outside the city—perhaps from Moira to Templepatrick. They should scrap phases 2 and 3 as the destruction of homes and premises would be considerable and the new roads would only increase the traffic flow. They should consider developing a fast and modern rail service for the area linking Larne, Lisburn and Bangor, and they should create car parks on the outskirts of the city served by an efficient bus service.
I raise this matter because, if the present plans go forward, there will be considerable compensation arising out of this order. If the main road is put 50 ft. from some of the Divis Flats there will undoubtedly be a noise problem. As the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Austick) and I both know, considerably further than 50 ft. from a road can and does create a noise problem.
I think that some questions can be answered in this short debate. What additional cost is the implementation of the provisions of this order expected to put on the present plan for the Belfast ring road? If, under the order, there is to be compensation, then that should enter into any cost benefit analysis. Including this additional cost, what is the latest estimate for the cost of the plan as a whole? How far has the Ministry of Development proceeded with the allocation of orders on phase 1? What is to be the response of the Government to the motion passed by the Belfast District Council?
I have serious doubts about this major development, though it is very much a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I come back to the point that, when the Assembly gets under way in Northern Ireland, this will be one of the matters that the 78 Members, particularly those from the Greater Belfast Area and Belfast, will discuss at greater length and in a way that we are unable to do this evening.
I have raised serious doubts about a particular development in Northern Ireland, but I should like to repeat that we welcome the draft Land Acquisition and Compensation Order.
I should like to mention only one other point. The Minister referred to Part VII, Article 65, in which there is provision for the compulsory acquisition of land required for the public service. That is in addition to the Land Compensation Act passed for the rest of the United Kingdom. Presumably that is put in the order because of the particular problems in Northern Ireland. Whether I am right or wrong that that is in addition to the Act matters not. It is in the order and it is additional to the powers that we have here.
Two points arise. It is always difficult for those of us who take an interest in Northern Ireland to have the detailed knowledge possessed by Ulster Members. That must be so, however hard one tries to get a detailed knowledge of the area, so it is left to those who represent that part of the United Kingdom and to Ministers who spend a great deal of time there. But, given the security position there and however much it is improved, I understand that a great deal of land is being bought up in the Belfast area.
I have had stories brought in my direction of people going there from this part of the United Kingdom because it is easy to buy land and property cheaply in Northern Ireland at present. Indeed, this week—how far this is true I have no way of finding out—I have been informed that German and Japanese businessmen are buying up land in Northern Ireland. It is understandable that this should happen. People are taking the long view. They are saying that there will come a time when normal circumstances will return to Northern Ireland

—Belfast, in particular—and therefore it makes sense in the European set-up to buy land cheaply which will one day be a great deal more valuable than it is now. That is what it adds up to. If that is the case, would it not be sensible for the Government seriously to consider buying up land themselves in Northern Ireland under Article 65, and perhaps under other articles of this order. If it is true that Japanese and German businessmen are buying for the longer term although the private businessman here is not prepared to do so, the Government ought to be getting a land bank for the future development of Northern Ireland.
Another point which I want to make is that during the last year or two I have had a number of representations about the problem of areas such as Roden Street. Both Ministers will know of the problems there. The market value of areas such as Roden Street has deteriorated seriously as a result of their position in Belfast and the people feel that they are hardly done by, particularly when owner-occupied property is acquired. All I am asking is whether this order has any relevance to a situation of that sort. I know of the strong feelings of people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, and I am wondering whether the Government's powers would ease the situation in areas such as Roden Street.
We on this side welcome this order. We know that there are many other applications to Northern Ireland, and I hope that when the Assembly gets under way shortly there will be other measures and discussions on the particular problems of Northern Ireland, because it is the Assemblymen of Northern Ireland who know the real problems that face us and not the Members of this House.

2.7 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As a Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, I should like to register my strongest possible protest at the way in which this very important Order in Council, which has 72 articles and some 54 pages, has been brought before this House at nearly 2 o'clock this morning. I suppose I should congratulate the Minister on his brevity, but there are many points concerning this order on


which I should have liked to hear him expounding.
Before we began to debate this order, Members from other parts of the country were holding forth upon the rights of this House and upon the way that legislation should be brought before it. I wondered from time to time what would have been their attitude if an attempt had been made to foist legislation upon them in the way we are being asked to pass a very important Order in Council at this early hour of the morning. We are already limited by the fact that we cannot make any amendments to this order. The only opportunity we have of registering our protest is by voting against it, and no one wants to vote against an Order in Council which has very many good points, and we want to give our blessing to those measures which will help our country.
This debate tonight will be for Northern Ireland like a photograph of a debate which we had at the beginning of the Assembly between the Loyalist Members and those of the SDLP. There will be just two voices from Northern Ireland in this House tonight. But I am sure that in this debate, whatever the very deep differences between the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and myself, our speeches tonight—and I am not anticipating what he will say—will find a unity for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
If this order had been a Bill, it would have been a very substantial one with some 72 clauses. Instead we have these 72 articles. The order merits careful attention by the people of Northern Ireland. It repeals a number of important sections in various Acts, and I have been perusing some of those Acts. I must put most of my speech in the form of questions so that I can elicit information.
I should like to know why the Minister chose this order to repeal Section 91 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907. That section deals with sky signs, and I want to know what sky signs have to do with this order. Would he also explain what Section 22 of that 1907 Act has to do with this order? That section enables a local authority to
require the corner of any building intended to be erected at the corner of two streets to

he rounded off … to the height of the first storey or to the full height of the building …
What this has to do with this order I do not know. As for sky signs, which include balloons and such things, I should like to know what significance they have.
May I draw the Minister's attention to the repeal of Section 28 of the Housing Act (Northern Ireland) 1961? When the provisions relating to compensation were dealt with, why was reference made to Section 2 of that Act? Does not the Minister feel that a part of Section 2 could well have been repealed in this order?
It would be a truism to say that when legislation of this kind comes before the House it should be scrutinised, but it deserves double scrutiny when the Government are given the right to acquire property forcibly. Therefore, this order should be given special attention. What worries me about the order is the fact that certain powers are to be vested in various Ministries. May I refer to Article 30 which states
(7) The Ministry of Development may, subject to such conditions as it may determine…".
That means that the Ministry is really a law unto itself. It may determine a certain course of procedure with regard to making a contribution to the Housing Executive.
Article 20 states:
Compensation under this Part shall carry interest, at such rate as may for the time being be determined by the Ministry of Finance…".
This places full authority on the Ministry of Finance. It is that Ministry which is to decide the rate of interest to be paid.
The same situation arises in Article 32(9):
The Ministry of Development may, subject to such conditions as it may determine …
I think the same thing is to be found in Articles 40 and 42. Why are not these matters spelt out and why do the Ministries reserve to themselves such great powers?
In Article 39 special power is given to the Housing Executive. The executive
…may pay the reasonable expenses of the tenant in removing".
who is to decide what those reasonable expenses are? The poor man who is


shifted may feel that they are all the expenses incurred by him because he has to shift his home. But the executive may say that it is not responsible for all his expenses. The same applies where the tenant purchases the dwelling to which he moves. The executive:
… where the tenant is purchasing the dwelling to which he is removing, may pay any other reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant …".
Article 18 provides:
Any question of disputed compensation under this Part shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
Mention is also made of the Lands Tribunal in Article 38(4):
Any dispute as to the amount of a disturbance payment shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
Does this mean that the procedure carried out at present by the Lands Tribunal is to remain? If so, that is to the disadvantage of a person claiming compensation, because if he loses his case before the Lands Tribunal he has to pay all the costs of the hearing. It means that a person who is not happy with what he is offered by the Ministry, who appeals to the Lands Tribunal and loses his case, will find that he has to pay the costs of the hearing. I protest at that procedure.
The Minister knows that farmers are extremely reluctant to go before the Lands Tribunal. They know that there is no appeal from a decision of the tribunal. A farmer constituent of mine has had an unfortunate experience at the hands of the Lands Tribunal. The water board paid about £8,000 an acre for some land next to his own. His farm was taken over, and he was offered only £500 an acre. He thought that he should have been offered about the value given for the acreage next to his own. When he appealed to the Lands Tribunal he was refused what he felt to be the proper price. He had to pay the costs of his appeal, and he feels that he has been badly treated by the tribunal.
I bring the Minister's attention back to Part II. Article 4(2) deals with the physical factors caused by the use of public works resulting in depreciation. It says that they are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge on to the land of any solid or liquid substance. Can the Minister say whether the physical

factors include dust settling on land? In certain areas of Northern Ireland the dust from public works has become almost a scourge. I know of cases where dust has penetrated into homes, leading ultimately to their destruction.
In Ballymena, which is the largest town in my constituency, the local council installed a heat treatment plant at it sewage works. That plant gave out a tremendous stench. The stench was so great that the plant had to be closed down. The whole of Harryville, which is at the lower end of Ballymena, was overcome with the fumes and the smell of the heat treatment plant. The council is taking action against the people who installed the plant. Only recently one of the big factories in Ballymena put in the sewage pipes a by-product produced by its manufacturing process. That substance clogged up the sewerage system in Ballymena and caused another tremendous smell. Again, there was an uproar.
Does this measure cover a matter like that? The sewage disposal agency is now in the hands of the public and it is a public works. Is this the type of thing for which people can claim compensation? If so, how is a test to be made that a stench is of such a nature that compensation is payable? That will be a difficult problem. I am sure the Minister appreciates that.
There are many other matters which deserve careful scrutiny. I return to the matter of the ring road. I agree that it is a perplexing matter. The Democratic Unionists voted against the proposal way back when the matter was first mooted. The ring road comes into part of the area of the hon. Member for Belfast, West including the Donegal Road end. The top of Sandy Row will become completely destroyed if the plan goes through. The fact is that the ring road is there and there is a great mass of pilings holding it up. The shadow of it is upon the immediate districts. It almost blights the whole district. It will blight the dwellings of the people nearby and make it uncongenial for them to live in the area.
The area of Sandy Row, with its shopping centre running parallel with Great Victoria Street, is a vital issue. In what way will compensation be assessed for the people living in the area? Some


people are not keen to leave the area. I do not suppose that the authorities would want the whole population to leave? How will the claims be assessed that they no doubt wish to make? It is important that a study should be made of an important rail link. That would ease the situation considerably. Those are important matters which need to be taken into consideration.
These are just some of the things that perturb me and, though I may not get an answer to them tonight, I shall be happy to wait for an answer. This is an intricate order and it would take a lawyer, after great study, to understand some of the clauses and their wording. Therefore, it takes a layman a considerable time to try to get the hang or sense of some of the articles. I have tried to study the order as best I can.
I suggest to the Minister that in future when he has such an intricate order he does not bring it on in the middle of the night. During this Session controversial issues seem to be discussed in the House in the daylight, whereas the real meat of the things that affect the people of Northern Ireland are left to discussion in night sittings. This does not give the people of Northern Ireland a good impression of this House. Surely these matters should be discussed at a better time in the parliamentary timetable. I hope that in future those hon. Members from Northern Ireland who take an interest in these matters will be given the opportunity to discuss them at a more reasonable hour.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Since the House met yesterday afternoon there has been considerable disappointment on both sides of the House at the fact that the Government are appearing to rush through legislation during this concluding part of the Session. I agree with all the protests which have been made, though most of them relate to constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. The fact that I find myself at this hour in the early morning in company with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) trying to voice the same protest as he has voiced is some indication of the extreme dissatisfaction we feel at the techniques adopted by the Government in

seeking to rush through major legislation at the end of this Session.
There are twelve Members from Northern Ireland who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in this House. I wish to put on record our disappointment at the way in which legislation is now being hurried through in this way. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) took some comfort from the fact that the major part of this legislation has already been put before the House for other parts of the United Kingdom, but we are now talking about a major change in a major part of Northern Irish legislation.
Let me put on record what we are now discussing and we can see these headings on `the front page of the order. We are discussing the right to compensation; interests qualifying for compensation; claims; assessment of compensation and general provisions; assessment of compensation; assumptions as to planning permission; reduction of compensation where other land is benefited; exclusion of minimal compensation; other restrictions on compensation; alterations to public works and changes of use; mortgages, trusts for sale and settlements; interests acquired by inheritance; tenants entitled to enlargement or extension under the Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; special provision for claims arising before commencement date; information for ascertaining relevant date; disputes; action for nuisance following unsuccessful claim where responsible authority have disclaimed statutory immunity; interest on compensation; and the interpretation of all these matters. As a public representative, I believe that these issues, which will affect the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland, are worth more than a 90-minute debate.
When the Northern Ireland Temporary Provisions Bill abolished the Northern Ireland Parliament and made way for direct rule, we all recognised, particularly those representing Northern Ireland constituencies, that that procedure, which meant discussing Northern Ireland issues after the normal business, at 10.30 or later, would be completely unsatisfactory. I did not oppose direct rule, because it was necessary at the time, but I had serious misgivings about how it would operate. In the interests of their constituents,


hon. Members require adequate time to put down amendments. Now, an important piece of legislation, which in any democratic legislature would be seriously considered, has to be accepted or rejected—and cannot be amended.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that certain legislation is repealed under the order. Schedule 3 includes the repeal of Article 96(2) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which was not debated in any elected Northern Ireland institution. The same applies to the repeal of two orders enacted in 1971 and 1972, which came before the House in the early hours of the morning, when I may or may not have been present. With the political situation in Northern Ireland, it is not possible for every elected representative to be in the House at those hours.
The order contains much important legislation, and since its publication five or six weeks ago, given the political dialogue now taking place in Northern Ireland, there should be opportunity for elected Members to give it the priority it should have had.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South mentioned the Belfast urban motorway proposals and the fact that in the new Belfast District Council, constituted under legislation enacted here, irrespective of party allegiance, members of the party led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, members of my party, members of the Alliance Party, and even some members of the official Unionist Party have rejected those proposals as at present envisaged.
I take no satisfaction in saying to the hon. Member for Antrim, North that, as a member of the old Belfast Corporation, I objected in the 1960s to the urban motorway proposals, long before there was a Democratic Unionist Party. My attitude then has been vindicated in so far as we have had the support of the vast majority of members of the new Belfast District Council in our opposition to the motorway.
We can vote tonight on the order but would probably lose the vote. This is important legislation. It will be binding on future developments in questions of compensation—and I am thinking not of the great landowners but of the small person owning his own house in a little

back street, whether it be in the Falls area or Shankill or any other part of Belfast. The proposals for the motorway give great priority to the combustion engine but no consideration to the people who own their own humble homes.
All these are matters which should be discussed in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North and I may be at odds vehemently about whether there should be total integration of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom or whether there should be a regional Assembly, but I believe that all these interests we are now discussing could be better discussed in a Northern Ireland Assembly because the elected representatives are much aware of what is happening there.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the smells and vibrations and stinks emanating from some places in Ballymena. I am sure he thinks, as I do, that it is not appropriate for us to be considering these things at this hour of the night and that he accepts that not too many people here are all that interested in what is happening in his constituency.
From the discussions taking place in Northern Ireland we hope an Executive and a worthwhile Assembly will emerge in a democratic institution which will reflect all the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of political party. This legislation is vitally important, and it is not the end of the road.
I hope to see the occasion arise when all these interests can be included in a Bill which would mirror this order but be brought before the Assembly in Northern Ireland. We could then discuss it, amend it and improve it in whichever way we thought to be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Although the order will be accepted in the House tonight, I hope that it will not be sacrosanct for all time. I hope that the Minister will indicate that when the new Assembly and Executive come into operation we shall have an opportunity, if necessary, to amend the order or to improve upon it and that that will not be resented by this House.

2.41 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: Even though the hour is late, we have had an interesting and worthwhile debate. I am grateful to the


hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who said that he was not opposed to the order. Indeed, he said that he welcomed it.
I shall try to answer some of the many questions that have been posed. The hon. Member for Leeds, South talked about publicity. How right he is. How important that is. It is crucial if we are to make this work and to help people. There will be general publicity in the form of newspaper advertisements, articles in professional magazines, leaflets in the question and answer formula and direct communication with bodies such as the Ulster Farmers' Union and various other organisations. Secondly—this is very important—there will be direct communication with known interested individuals. For example, the Roads Division of the Ministry of Development and the Housing Executive are at present identifying the persons who would benefit under the provisions of the Order in Council from their acquisition funds. I give the assurance that we shall do all that we can to make this widely known.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South then asked about costs. These are very difficult to estimate. For example, firstly the number of claimants for compensation for injurious affection is unknown at present. The number of claimants for home loss or farm loss payments is unknown. The best estimate that I can at present give is about £500,000 per annum for the next few years. About half of that, £250,000, could relate to roads and injurious affection by noise, and the remainder, another £250,000, would relate mainly to home loss payments arising from housing replacement, redevelopment or slum clearance. These are only estimates but they give some idea of what we are thinking of—about £500,000.
The matters that we are dealing with will be transferred subjects, so the Assembly and the Executive can deal with them later.
The problem of the Belfast motorway, or ring road, has interested several hon. Members tonight. Of course we appreciate the concern that has been expressed. But plans are very far advanced. They were originally approved by the Belfast Corporation. Now I

understand that the Belfast City Council has expressed its concern. The Ministry is examining the project with the council and consulting it at present. The Government recognise the importance of allowing full discussion of major proposals like this, and of others which will be made, with district councils and the Assembly if they want them. But they believe that this is the correct project and the right way forward. They realise, however, that this belief must be reconciled with the views of local bodies and local needs.
We take on board the point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South about other things which should be done. I assure him that massive car parks and a greatly improved rail system are in the planning stage. The question of phases 2 and 3 is wide open. We are concerned, but matters have gone a long way. There is the problem of heavy trucks and traffic delays in the city centre, as I know only too well when I travel through it.
The question of Articles 65 and 66 has been raised. This is a matter of bringing the legislation in Northern Ireland up to the standard of Section 113 of the English Town and Country Planning Act. I have a disappointing answer about Roden Street: no, it does not help apparently.
I note the protest of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Reverend Ian Paisley). I have sympathy with hon. Members over the difficulty that they are in. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assist speedily and helpfully in the establishment of the Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland because then these matters can be dealt with there. That is surely what we want. That must be the answer rather than have people kept up late at night in this Chamber, with all the other problems.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to various repeals. He had me worried for a moment. Section 22 of the amending legislation of the Public Health Acts enables local authorities to acquire buildings at the corners of streets to be rounded off to secure better site lines. It is superseded by the planning order. It is unnecessary because these matters are taken into account in planning permissions, which did not happen in the past. That is true of Section 91.
Section 28 of the Housing Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 specifies a duty to pay disturbance compensation. It is being replaced by Article 37, which is better. Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, North would look at it when he has time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I drew attention to Section 2 of the 1961 Act and asked whether part of it should be repealed as it is replaced by the legislation we are considering, but it is not shown as being repealed.

Mr. Mills: I am grateful. Perhaps I had better look at the matter more carefully. I mentioned that a written reply would be sent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
The Lands Tribunal, about which the hon. Member was concerned, is a court of law, and the court reserves the right to apportion costs according to the reasonableness of the claim. A just reference, even if unsuccessful, does not attract severe costs. The commissioner can deal with complaints of mal-administration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the Minister is not suggesting that if someone thinks he has been dealt with unfairly by the Lands Tribunal he can take the matter to the Commissioner for Complaints. Is it not a fact that in all the cases before the Lands Tribunal in Northern Ireland costs have been awarded against those who have lost their case?

Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman is right. I mentioned the Commissioner for Complaints in the whole context of complaints. I believe that if the case before the Lands Tribunal is a reasonable one, losing the case would not attract the payment of heavy costs.
The other point was about smells, noises, and so on. That valuation officer, in consultation with the valuer for the claimant, would consider whether it was a suitable claim. I should have thought—and I shall check on this—that that was so for both dust and smells.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke about legislation being rushed through. I understand his view, and I have stated my opinion on the matter. The order will bring real benefit to many people. It will help those who

have been subjected to problems and difficulties and have suffered blight without getting any compensation. It is important that the order should come into effect so that people can take advantage of it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am informed that legal aid can be obtained for Lands Tribunal actions in this country. May we assume that that applies in Northern Ireland? If it does, it will go some way to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I thank him for reminding the House of the position. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West has taken the point on board.

Mr. Fitt: There could be disadvantages.

Mr. Mills: Yes, there could be, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the order carefully he will realise that it will provide considerable help for many people.
That brings me to the point that was made about the small householder in a back street. The order will help him, too. Much of the order is designed to cater for such a person in various ways. It will provide compensation for people over the age of 60, for those who are crippled, and so on. It will also provide compensation for rehousing the homeless. I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West to realise that the order is designed to help people in those circumstances, as well as the large landowner.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that we did not understand the problems of Northern Ireland. I do not think that he is right in taking that view. There is nothing to stop the new Assembly from bringing in new measures or amending the order. Once the Assembly and the Executive are under way, these things can be dealt with.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I referred to land acquisition by the Japanese and the Germans, which seems to be a common story. I do not know the full force of it, but I hope that the Minister will consider all its aspects. It may be that Articles 65 and 66 apply here. I hear the story too often for my comfort.

Mr. Mills: I am sorry that I did not cover this point. I have heard this story as well, as I believe my colleagues have. I believe that it is exaggerated. I have heard of only one case. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
This is an important order. I accept the point about the timing. I believe that it helps in the tremendous dilemma that there always is of the Government wanting to have roads, redevelopment, and so on, and a private owner who has his rights and difficulties. The order goes a long way to grapple with these problems of compensation. This is why I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCE)

2.56 a.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1260), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th July, be approved.
This order is a purely financial measure to effect changes in some Northern Ireland taxes—estate duty and stamp duty—which were normally dealt with in Northern Ireland legislation, although under the new Constitution Act these matters will be handled at Westminster. It also contains some miscellaneous financial provisions. The most significant of the tax changes have been enacted for Great Britain in the Finance Act 1973. The remainder are minor amendments to bring Northern Ireland legislation on estate duty and stamp duty into line with Westminster legislation.
The order was made on 27th July under urgent procedure, was laid on the 30th, and is already in operation. The contents of the order could not be finalised until July because of the possibility of late amendments during the passage of the Finance Bill here at Westminster for which provision might need to be made in the order. That proved

to be the case in relation to a certain amendment.
It was important that certain of the provisions in the order, particularly those concerning stamp duty, should be in operation on the same date on which the corresponding changes in Great Britain were to come into operation—that is, 1st August. There was no choice but to use the urgent procedure, caught as we were in the delay until the passing of the Finance Bill and the need to get the stamp duty in operation by 1st August.
At this very late hour I will confine myself to a brief description of the contents of the order. On estate duty, the major change—this is in Article 3—applies to shares and securities quoted on a recognised stock exchange or to holdings in authorised unit trusts. Where, in relation to deaths occurring after 6th March 1973, any person accounting for estate duty on such investments realises them within 12 months of the death, he will be able to claim that the total of the sale prices should be substituted for the values at death of the investments realised. This parallels a provision in the Finance Act here.
A further important change—this is in Article 4—is a provision enabling all information which a prudent prospective purchaser of unquoted shares and securities might reasonably require if he were proposing to purchase them by private treaty to be taken into account in determining the principal value of those shares and securities for the purposes of estate duty. This again parallels a provision in the Finance Act at Westminster.
Apart from these changes, the order also extends the powers of the Ministry of Finance—Article 5—to accept objects of historic or artistic value in satisfaction of estate duty and to make provision for exemption from estate duty to be granted in cases where a member of the Armed Forces dies as a result of the aggravation by war service of previously existing disease—that is in Article 6.
Finally, in this part of the order, it preserves the operation of existing estate duty law in relation to overseas pensions formerly paid by the Governments of territories which have ceased to be British colonies. That is Article 7.
Stamp duty, companies capital and loan capital duty are replaced by a duty on


share capital chargeable at the rate of 1 per cent. That is covered by Articles 8 to 10, and again it is in line with our Finance Act.
The more important miscellaneous provisions in the order are concerned with removing doubts about the powers of Northern Ireland Departments and other Northern Ireland public bodies to borrow abroad, and with removing the existing limit on the amount of investment grant which can be paid in Northern Ireland to any one firm in any one year. There is, in fact, no limit in Great Britain, so this provision brings Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. Those two items are covered by Articles 11 and 15.
There is provision in Article 14 that attendance allowance shall be omitted when calculating reckonable income for the purposes of rate rebate, again bringing what is a relatively new rebate system in Northern Ireland into line in this respect with Great Britain.
Finally, technical amendments are needed to clarify references concerning the Stock Exchange in existing legislation and to clarify the borrowing powers of the Ministry of Finance. Those are covered by Articles 12 and 13.

3.1 a.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We opposed the Finance Bill when it went through the House, and, if we were logical, I suppose that we should oppose this financial order for Northern Ireland. However, it is inappropriate that we should do that. The House knows our views on the Finance Act.
On the additional provisions relating to Northern Ireland, I simply observe that, whatever happens about the Assembly and the powers to be transferred to the Assembly, we in this House shall shortly have to put our minds to debating matters of finance applying to Northern Ireland. It would be inappropriate that I should do that tonight. We had our views on the Finance Bill, and we prefer to let the matter rest at that.

3.2 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister made clear that the matter before us is not one which would be discussed in the Assembly and it is a matter for this House. Taking a dig at

me, perhaps, hon. Members have rightly said that my protest would have been stronger if I were supporting the undemocratic Northern Ireland Constitution Bill. But on this matter they cannot argue that way, because it will be reserved to this House.
This is an important order, and there are matters in it which were opposed by the Opposition on the Finance Bill, but, at a few minutes past three in the morning, I do not think that anyone—not even an incorrigible Ulster Protestant—would attempt to keep the House long in its deliberations. But this I do say. In future, when the House of Commons has to consider matters which cannot be discussed in the Assembly, a way must be found to give us reasonable opportunity to amend and to oppose things with which we do not agree.
The Government will have to pay close attention to that, for if—I do not say for a moment that it will happen—we have a viable Executive and a viable Assembly, the matters discussed in this House must be dealt with in a democratic fashion. It is certainly not democratic, at five minutes past three, to say "We cannot enter into argument tonight, and even if we did we could only vote against the order". I do not think that any hon. Member would want to vote against the provisions in this order, which are helpful to the people of Northern Ireland.
There is one part of the order that I welcome—the exclusion of the attendance allowance when reckoning income for rate rebate. That provision will help the working-class people of Northern Ireland. I am glad that it is now part of the law of Northern Ireland.
I should like to know in which foreign market the Minister suggests that borrowing will take place. There is reference to borrowing in sterling or foreign currency. What foreign currency has the Minister in mind? Where will he borrow money for the various Northern Ireland projects? I shall be interested to know that, especially in reference to the question put in the previous debate about foreign interests coming into Northern Ireland. I should like to know whether we shall borrow in the Japanese market or the German market.
I hope that the next time we discuss the finances of Northern Ireland we shall have an opportunity of a full-scale debate. I welcome anything that brings Northern Ireland into parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, however, so I give my blessing to that part of the order.

3.7 a.m.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have received this order. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has a point when he talks about the time at which we are debating these important financial matters, which will remain the responsibility of Westminster once the Constitution Act comes into effect. We were all dismayed at the course that events took this evening and the way in which debates about procedure tilled in time which we had hoped we might take up on this most important matter. I accept my hon. Friend's point as a fair one.
As to foreign currency, I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend the precise market, but I am assured that foreign market currency is available for this kind of borrowing, once doubts are removed about the legal powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly and other public bodies in Northern Ireland to borrow. Given the removal of these doubts, all these bodies will be in a position to borrow, and I understand that they will be able to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1260), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th July, be approved.

POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.9 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation Bill, consolidating certain enactments relating to the powers of the courts to deal with offenders in various ways. It was considered by the Joint Committee on 11th July. The Committee reported that after it had heard evidence thereon it made certain amendments to improve the form of the Bill to bring it into conformity with existing law. The committee was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation, that it represented existing law, and that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.

3.10 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I know that this is a consolidation Bill and that there is no question of a discussion of its merits, but how is it that a consolidation Bill which is supposed to be a sort of manual for the guidance of Crown Courts as to their rights and duties in respect of sentencing can include some penal provisions in existing Acts and exclude others?
My attention was drawn to the subject by Clause 19, which deals with the powers of the Crown Court relating to the imprisonment of young people. Subsection (1) provides that no Crown Court
shall impose imprisonment on a person under seventeen years of age.
Subsection (2) provides for restrictions on the imprisonment of persons between the ages of 17 and 21.
What puzzles me about consolidation Bills of this kind is why no provision is made for Section 3(1) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, the very provision in the law which Crown Courts have to apply to the imprisonment of young people, in which provision is made that no sentence shall be imposed for more than six months or less than three years. That provision, which has received a great deal of criticism and some objection by benches and judges who have had to apply it, is relevant to Clause 19.


Without it it would seem that this is an inadequate form of sentencing for use by criminal courts. I wonder whether that omission might at some time be rectified.

3.12 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I apologise to my hon. Friend if, due to the late hour of the night, I do not understand the point that he has made. I do not understand whether it is that we are not altering the law in a way that he thinks it ought to be altered. If so, this being a consolidation Bill, it cannot be altered. There cannot be any substantial change of that kind. If he is saying that there is some provision which is not repeated here, then I must ask him to look at page 80, the table of derivations, from which he will find where these various clauses are set out and the original Acts which have been replaced by this consolidation Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE

3.14 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move,
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if this and the following three regulations are grouped together.

The Solicitor-General: With the permission of the House, I will deal with these four regulations together.
The two regulations relating to England were laid on 18th October and the two relating to Scotland on 22nd October. The provisions are the same on both sides of the border, but the regulations fall into two groups. The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations relate to eligibility for legal aid and the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations relate to legal advice and assistance.
The legal aid regulations increase the financial limits within which people are eligible for legal aid, by increasing the income limits within which people are entitled to that aid. The present limits are £300 for free legal aid and £950 at the top end for contributory legal aid, and these figures were fixed in 1970. The limits relate not to actual income but to what is called "disposable income"; that is to say, the income which an applicant can be expected to receive during the 12 months from the date of his application, after deductions are made in respect of maintenance of dependants, repayment of loans, hire purchase, income tax, expenses of employment, rates, rent and other matters for which provision can reasonably be made. Thus, the figures which I have given do not set the limits as low as they seem, as allowances must be made for the appropriate deductions in each particular case. The regulations increase these limits to £375 a year for free legal aid, and to £1,175 a year for contributory legal aid, which amounts to increases of 25 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively.
If one looks then at what the gross income will be, it comes to this. For a single man now it is a minimum of


£616 and a maximum of £1,617. Under these regulations, those figures will go up to £733 and £1,965 It one goes to the other end of the scale, for a married couple with three children aged, for example, 4, 8 and 13, with an income including £1.90p family allowance, in future the maximum gross income for a free certificate where no contribution is made will be £1,420, and the minimum gross income required to come out of the scheme and not be allowed to participate will be £2,654. So the figures or £375 and £1,175 have to be looked at in relation to those gross earnings in those cases where various assumptions have been made for example, that the rent is £3 a week and there are hire purchase and insurance commitments amounting to £104 a year.
Unfortunately, because of the present financial stringency and the need to contain public expenditure, it has not been possible for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee in full. As the House will recall, the committee recommended limits of £400 and £1,250 respectively. The Government accept that it is unsatisfactory now to review income limits at irregular or lengthy intervals, and this is a considerable and important concession. In future, it is proposed that they should be reviewed annually, so as to ensure that they do not compare unfavourably with, for example, the periodic increase in supplementary benefits. This is an advance which I hope will go a long way to assuage hon. Members' disappointment that, in fact, we have not been able to accept the Advisory Committee's recommendations in full.
So far as the advice side is concerned, the regulations at present allow for £20 at the top end. The new regulations increase to £24·50 per week, the maximum income which a man may have if he is to be allowed legal advice and assistance under the 1972 Act. That again is disposable income, not gross income. These limits are, broadly speaking, the same as the legal aid limits, and although on paper the legal advice limits may appear higher, because I worked out the £24·50 a week as £1,274 a year as opposed to £1,175 on the legal aid figures, the reason is that on the legal advice procedure, where one goes for what is

called the £25 scheme with a solicitor, this is simplified as much as possible There is no assessment by the Supplementary Benefits Commission there. So the £104 which is allowed for insurance and hire purchase in the legal aid scheme is built in automatically, and one adds £104 to the £1,175 and one comes to almost exactly the same figure relating to the two schemes. The regulations do not alter the capital limit for legal advice and assistance which came into operation on 2nd April this year.
I should point out that these regulations must be read with a third set of regulations which the House does not have to consider tonight since they are not subject to affirmation resolution but will come into force at the same time. Those are the Legal Aid and Advice Financial Provisions (No. 3) Regulations, which deal with the lower end of the scale where the figure has been increased from £11 to £12·50 as the disposable income above which a person in receipt of advice and assistance is required to pay a contribution.
The scale of contributions has been altered, starting at £1 for a person with a disposable income between £1,250 and £1,350, rising by eight stages of £2 to £15 for a person with a disposable income up to the limit. As some idea of what cost is involved here on the legal aid side of this improvement, in the year 1974–75 it is expected to involve extra expenditure of about £916,000, going up to the year 1977–78 to £1,017,000. The other side of the coin is that it will reduce the contributions of a large number of people who are already enjoying legal aid but whose contributions have not been completed. It will mean that in the future each year about 9,800 people, who at the moment would be bound to make a contribution, will not have to make any contribution, and it is expected that there will be some 7,500 people who ordinarily would not qualify will qualify and about 36,000 people will have to pay less.
With regard to the legal advice scheme, some 8,500 more people who would now be liable to pay a contribution will be exempted from contribution and about 28,000 people will pay a smaller contribution. So for a comparatively small increase, somewhere in the region


of 24 to 25 per cent., there is this marked increase in benefit to those who we hope will be able to take advantage of it. This appears, in our view, to be an improvement which I am sure the House will welcome, and I commend these regulations to the House.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: On this side of the House we give a grudging welcome to these regulations—a welcome because we have been pressing for a long time for increases in these schemes, not so much to bring more people in but to bring people who have floated out back into the area of legal aid and advice.
May I say in passing that we welcome also the proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put to the House, that in future the review should be annual, but a grudging welcome because, as the Solicitor-General mentioned, these regulations do not go as far as we would have wished and as the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee has recommended.
The House will be aware that in matters affecting the legal aid scheme and the £25 scheme the Lord Chancellor and the Government have the great advantage of having regular reports from the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. It is a small but expert body composed of both lawyers and lay men and women. We on this side do not invariably agree with its recommendations, but where we find ourselves compelled to differ it is usually because we want to go faster and the committee wants to go slower; we want to be more radical and the committee prefers a more conservative approach. But we have great respect for the advisory committee's views, as I am sure have the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers.
During the period since the income limits for legal aid were last amended in 1970 and since the Legal Advice and Assistance Act fixed the initial limits for legal advice under the £25 scheme, there have been a number of reports by the advisory committee making recommendations on these matters. Therefore, it might seem a little strange and at first sight even a little discourteous that the advisory committee is not even mentioned in the explanatory notes to these orders. But, having compared the

reports with the orders, my conclusion is that it is not a lack of courtesy which accounts for the omission. It is shame on the part of the Government.
As the Solicitor-General agreed, the Government have plainly ignored the recommendations of the advisory committe and produced instead some mean little orders with mean little contents. The Government's proposed increases not only fall well below those recommended by the advisory committee in its report for the year 1970–71. In addition, the proposed increases in these orders come into effect very much later than proposed by the advisory committee, despite the fact that there has been rampant inflation in the meantime.
In its 1971 report, the advisory committee rightly pointed out in paragraph 15 that the method of assessing a litigant's resources works fairly so long as inflation is controlled. When it is not controlled the system can only be satisfactory if the minimum limit below which no contribution is paid is regularly raised and other limits accordingly. It pointed out that although the limit had been fixed as recently as 1970, none the less by 1971 it had already fallen behind.
The practice in the past has been to try to produce a rough equation between the minimum income limit for legal aid and the equivalent supplementary benefit allowance, though the legal aid limit has been somewhat higher. But by 1971 the minimum income limit for legal aid had fallen to a point £1.60 below the equivalent supplementary benefit allowance, and the committee thought that it was likely to fall further. For that reason, and at that early stage, it was pressing for an urgent solution to the problem. The Government took no action on that report.
In 1972 we had the £25 scheme—the Legal Advice and Assistance Act. Before it was enacted the advisory committee gave urgent attention to the income limits. During the passage of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act, the House will recall that the Opposition repeatedly urged the Government to increase the limits which were to be put in the Act. I can recall saying in Committee, and in the later stage, that the limits were already out of date. Unfortunately, we urged to no avail, except that it is possible that our


pressure on the Government may have been partly responsible for the advisory committee taking the unusual course of issuing an interim report which was signed in January and printed in February.
In the report the committee made it clear that it regarded a rise in the income limits as urgently necessary. Indeed, that was the point of issuing an interim report. The report reiterated that minimum income limits were falling farther and farther behind supplementary benefit allowances. In addition, it expressed the firm view that it was essential for the limits to be raised in time for the coming into effect of Part I of the Act of last year on 2nd April 1973. It urged that the limits should be fixed at a level higher than the relevant supplementary benefit limit.
The report gave a striking account of how the legal aid limit had fallen relative to the supplementary benefit limit. It is worth noting the figures. In 1949, when the first Act came into being, the limit for legal aid was £156 and supplementary benefit was just over £62. In 1960 legal aid was £250 and supplementary benefit was £130. In 1970 legal aid was £300 and supplementary benefit had crept up to £270. By 1973 legal aid was still at £300. It had been overtaken by supplementary benefit, which was over £340.
The advisory committee recommended in the light of those figures, and of the likely upgrading of supplementary benefit, that £400 should be fixed as the legal aid limit from 2nd April. The Government's reply to that advice has been to fix the level at £375 not from 2nd April but from January of next year. That is despite the unprecedented inflation which we have had in the meantime.
The upper limit has been £950 since 1970. The advisory committee pointed out that to keep pace with inflation since 1970 the figure should by. 1973 be £1,137. To bring in a few extra people who would otherwise suffer hardship, they being just above the limit—there are many who suffer that hardship—it recommended a new upper limit of £1,250. That is by no means an inflated sum. The Government reply to that has been £1,175. The advisory committee recommended corresponding increases for legal advice and assistance so that the eligible

range would rise from £20 disposable income to £27 and from £11 to £13. Again, the Government's reply has been something lower than that—namely, £12·50 instead of £13 at the bottom end. That is a difference that seems hardly worth making. Then there is a figure of £24·50 at the top instead of £27.
All these figures under the Government's orders are to take effect from 1st January next, despite the inflationary pressures since the date recommended by the advisory committee. The advisory committee gave the Lord Chancellor its estimate of the cost of its proposals. It thought that the legal aid increases would cost £1½ million in a full year and that the £25 scheme increases would do no more than restore the figures to their 1970 value.
The House would wish to know what miserable sums the Government will save by these miserable orders. Is the advisory committee right to say about its proposals that there would be no real effect on the cost of the £25 scheme? If so, is the effect of the Government's figures to reduce the cost of the scheme? If so, how do the Government justify that?
Ever since the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill was brought before the House, and particularly since the interim report, we have been pressing the Government again and again to raise the figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis)—who would have taken part in this debate had it taken place at a more reasonable hour—has been in the forefront of the battle. But the replies all the time have been negative and stalling. From what has emerged the answer is clear. The Lord Chancellor, powerful though he is, has had to engage in a battle with the Commons Chancellor in the process, familiar to lawyers, of trying to settle at the doors of the court. In the event, the Chancellor of the Exchequer won and the lord Chancellor lost.
It will be a hollow victory—a victory for cheese-poring at the expense of justice. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who should be here at this hour defending himself rather than the Solicitor-General, who has fought with skill and charm to protect his right hon. Friend. The Solicitor-General has our sympathy. He must realise that these miserable savings and the miserable


meanness displayed by the Government are the mean and miserable hallmark of this miserable Government.

3.44 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), and I am sure the Solicitor-General will be pleased that at least there are hon. Members present at this time of the morning to express their disappointment at the rather stale half loaf he has presented to the House tonight.
I appreciated the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman presented these provisions to us tonight, and I do not intend to comment in any way on there-marks already made today about the order of business, because I had a minor part to play in the "normal channels". I appreciate the Government's difficulty about bringing forward all this business at this end of the Session, but I am sure that had the business of the House been less full today, far more attention would have been paid to these orders.
The point has already been made that these increases do not even keep pace with the levels of inflation which have occurred. The advisory committee has been turned down, and it seems to me that in simply increasing the scheme by an amount not enough to cover the increase in inflation the Government are missing the whole point of legal aid.
Legal aid is not just a question of helping someone obtain professional services who could not otherwise afford them. It is part of the process of breaking down the fear of legal processes that the ordinary man in the street has. As society becomes more complex, it becomes more important to set no obstacles in the way of those who look to the law for redress.
The Solicitor-General was a little unwise to tell the House that the reason why he could not go further was financial stringency, when such a rosy picture of booming prosperity is being painted by other Ministers. Through sticking too closely to his brief he let the cat out of the bag. When he is consulted tomorrow by the Cabinet about the reception given these orders, I hope he will say that we feel that legal aid is not simply a prop, but that people should feel it is something to help them fight for their

rights. Unless we are assured that, in the near future, another increase will be made—I welcome the review—not merely to keep pace with inflation but to increase the real rates, we shall begin to wonder whether the Government intend to whittle down the scale of legal aid.
There is a basic philosophical difference between the two major parties here—the Government seem to think that legal aid should be given only on sufferance, that we should be better off without it, and that, if it were gradually pared down in relation to the cost of living, one day it could be done away with altogether. It is wrong to think merely in terms of money and to discount the value of legal aid in making the ordinary citizen feel that he is not merely an anonymous unit fighting a machine— "them"—but has some protection and is a part of society.

3.43 a.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I support what my hon. Friends have said.
The Solicitor-General talked of a rise from £20 to £24·50 a week, an increase of 22·5 per cent., as if inflation has risen by only that amount since 1970. The figures for inflation given by other Departments are much higher. The rise does not keep pace with the cost of living over the period. The figures in 1970 were a start towards solving the problem; they were not the end of the difficulties that people had in seeking legal aid. There is an unequal society in the availability of legal aid and those who are poorest are not necessarily the worst off. A group above the bottom tier of incomes suffer considerably. They are often afraid to seek legal redress when they should get their just reward, simply because they cannot afford legal aid and are not sure that they will get it on the scale they need.
The order does not solve that problem. It does not even hold the ground. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned 9,000 people who would come within the category of having to contribute. What is the comparison with the 1970 figure? Are we redressing the balance with the situation as it was then? I am not satisfied that we did enough in 1970 and we should now be moving much further along this road.
I am a little concerned that the figures in the two orders are given in a different fashion—weekly income in one case and annual income in the other. The purpose is not quite clear. Is it in order to draw a little cloud over the situation?
The situation is far from satisfactory. Clearly, the intention of assisting so many people in our society has gone astray in that the Treasury has over-ruled the best intentions of people like the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure he would like to assure people that he would like them all to have the same kind of justice but that the Treasury has ruled otherwise.

3.47 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: There is nothing sinister in distinguishing in one order annual income and in the other weekly income. The annual income relates to legal aid which will be assistance for court cases. In such circumstances, there will be quite a lot of time during which proper assessment can be made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which has to assess what is going to be the gross income of the applicant for the following 12 months and then make suitable deductions for rent, income tax, rates, dependants, hire purchase and so on. That is done on an annual figure because the whole of the future 12 months is looked at by the commission. The end figure for the deductions is called the "disposable figure", and that is then divided so that one-third is contributed.
Weekly income is used in the legal advice system because the whole purpose of legal advice is that one should be able to obtain it quickly. One goes into a solicitor's office and says "I want to take advantage of the £25 scheme"—as it has become generally known—and the solicitor is provided by the Law Society with a short questionnaire which takes into account the man's income and his various outgoings which can be deducted. That is all based on weekly pay so that it can be done quickly at that moment. There is also a sort of code alongside, and the whole thing can be read off, and the solicitor can say at once whether the intending client will be covered by the scheme or not. That is the only reason why one works the weekly system on the advice scheme and the yearly system

when one comes to legal aid for court actions, where the urgency does not arise in anything like the same way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is nothing sinister in those distinctions.
I almost feel tonight as if I am taking something away from those who are seeking legal aid rather than increasing the limits which are provided for them. I suppose that there will never be an occasion on which the House will be satisfied, and obviously it is so desirable that every sort of assistance should be given to those who are unable otherwise to obtain the legal advice and help in legal cases that they need.
There is no question about letting the cat out of the bag about public expenditure because this has been common knowledge and expressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a number of occasions. If the cat did leap out of the bag no doubt it was chasing after the red herring which the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) trailed across the Floor of the House in his speech.
The annual review is perhaps the biggest improvement in the whole of the scheme which has been put forward tonight. Regarding the rest, it is true that the advisory committee has made recommendations. The increases which have been made amount to between 22½ per cent. and 25 per cent. across the board and are in each case roughly three quarters, anyway, of the figures which were recommended by the advisory committee. Accordingly, I invite the House to approve the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973. a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Resolved,
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved. —[The Solicitor-General.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Fox.]

PROTOTYPE ELECTRO PNEUMATIC TRAIN

3.53 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Thousands of my constituents earn their living in and around the City of London. For that purpose they travel daily into central London, mostly by rail. Over the years they have developed a high degree of knowledge and experience of the problems of commuter rail transport which, through the medium of the Orpington and District Rail Passengers' Association has been devoted to the improvement of surburban rail services and the interests of the passengers.
That is why the news which reached us in 1968, that British Rail was developing new high-density rolling stock for its suburban commuter rail services, aroused considerable interest. Despite all our efforts to ascertain what was being proposed and our express desire to be consulted about the new design, details of the proposed new train were refused to its prospective customers. As far as I know, there was no consultation with the travelling public and no invitation to put up ideas and suggestions while the new train was being designed.
Earlier this year, after years of planning and the reputed expenditure of £700,000 and a fanfare of trumpets, the new PEP train, the proposed new train for outer London commuter rail travel, was announced. The prototype is now in the course of a series of public trials in the London region. Its designers claim that it is the last word in artistic design and technical efficiency. Constructive suggestions for its improvement in detail have been invited. But as it has already reached an advanced stage, and as the existing passenger rolling stock has ceased to be ordered or supplied, there is a danger that no significant change

in the design will be possible whatever the reaction of the public.
That short history and that attitude of indifference to public criticism is, I fear, all too characteristic of some sections of British Rail today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will therefore take a close personal interest in this matter. He wrote to me in a letter dated 31st August this year as follows:
…when British Rail apply, as I understand they intend to, for infrastructure grant on the new stock, my Department will want to look closely at the opinions expressed by commuters and at any modifications which might result. The project will be judged on its merits and there will be no question of the commuters' views being ignored".
I welcome that assurance, and I wish to draw the Minister's attention to one or two matters which I believe merit his particular interest.
The basic reason for the new train is the technical and other progress made in this field since the existing train—designed I believe in the 1930s—was introduced. The new design is, in terms of lighting, traction, braking and suspension, a big improvement on the existing train. It ought to be. But most of these developments are below the floor where rail commuters do not claim to have any expert knowledge. Above the floor it is a different matter. The new train—the prototype now to be seen in the London area—is in appearance similar to the London underground train used for short journeys on the District Line. The automatic opening and closing of doors, provided there are enough of them, may have advantages. But they determine the basic layout, and it is here that British Rail designers have made their biggest error.
The facts are not in dispute. The existing Southern Region 10-car commuter train has 936 seats. The PEP 10-car train has only 700 seats—a reduction of over 26 per cent. There is more standing space and, therefore, more room for more people to get in, but less room for passengers to travel comfortably. So far as British Rail is concerned, the objective seems to be the highest possible density of human flesh to the cubic foot. Until I saw the words printed in full on the Order Paper the other day, I did not know that the letters PEP stand for "Prototype electro-pneumatic". I thought they were short


for "pack 'em in perpendicular". Certainly that version corresponds more closely with British Rail's attitude towards seating accommodation.
Indeed, seats appear to be regarded as a nuisance and annoyance to British Rail generally. One remembers how the new Euston station concourse first failed to provide any seats at all for the waiting public. Even today, most London terminals are inadequately provided with seats for members of the public.
Journeys made on commuter trains from areas such as my constituency can be up to, and sometimes beyond, an hour in duration. It is, unfortunately, common, at rush hour, for my constituents to be packed in like sardines and to stand all the way. How much worse is this experience going to be if the number of seats is reduced by 26 per cent.?
It is not only the availability of seats on the new trains which is objectionable. The seats themselves are uncomfortable. Their backs are too low, and they give no rest for the neck and head. The windows are too stiff. There are no hooks to hang on to in the aisles between the seats. The handrails provided at the back of the seats are too close for a handhold. The overhead handrail is too high, and is beyond the reach of a woman of average height, as are the luggage racks. The floor covering is of poor quality, easily scuffed, and held in place by tacks. The cushions are easily removed, and will be a standing invitation to vandals. In all those respects the existing train's design is superior.
British Rail claim to be sincerely interested in obtaining the opinions of rail commuters, yet the PEP train is being used mostly outside the rush hour periods when these defects are not so obvious. The Orpington and District Rail Passengers' Association has just completed a survey of passenger reactions to the PEP train. It distributed a questionnaire at Orpington and Petts Wood stations.
Passengers who had the opportunity of seeing and using the PEP train were invited to say whether they welcomed the new design or preferred a new train with a design similar to that of the existing trains. Altogether, 1,500 forms were returned, complete with names and addresses. Only 4 per cent. said they wanted the train with the new design, while 96

per cent. voted against it. I understand that a similar survey was recently conducted in the Sutton area, where the verdict was 12 to 1 against PEP.
That is solid evidence of the hostility of the travelling public to the new-fangled design. I ask my hon. Friend to heed it, to prevent British Rail from going ahead with a plan which will make the daily experience of my constituents even more uncomfortable and, above all, to insist on a higher ratio of seats to passengers. In short, I ask him to demand, as it were, more seats for British bottoms.

4.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for choosing this subject for debate. The hour is late, but I realise how important this matter is to my hon. Friend and to his constituents. I shall do my best to reply to the points that have been raised, but because of the nature of the issue I am in a certain amount of difficulty. I think that I should start by explaining the role of the Government in relation to British Rail, operations and developments.
Under the remit given to the British Railways Board under the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts, it is up to British Rail to run the country's railway system and, where they decide that new development or investment is needed, to work out plans for submission to the Government. Only when these plans are submitted either for investment approval or for infrastructure grant does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State become involved. I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that so far that stage has not been reached with the PEP story. It is at present only an experimental train, undergoing trials to establish its technical performance, its suitability in service and to test public reaction to it. How these trials are conducted and evaluated is entirely a matter for British Rail. My Department is inevitably watching developments with some interest, but it would be quite wrong for it to intervene in what British Rail is doing.
Looking a couple of years or so into the future, if British Rail is satisfied that new investment in inner suburban rolling stock is needed and that the


production version of PEP stock, modified as necessary in the light of the present and future trials, is the best design of stock for this type of service, then it will apply to the Secretary of State for investment approval and, no doubt, as I told my hon. Friend in my letter of 31st August, for infrastructure grant. At this point the matter will become of direct interest to the Government.
I can assure my hon. Friend, as I did in my letter to him, that in addition to studying the investment proposal in terms of its financial and social cost/benefit return, my right hon. and learned Friend will want to look at the wider implications of the proposal. In particular, he will pay particular attention to the opinions expressed by commuters who have been involved in the trials, and to any modifications which British Rail may have made to the design as a result. The project will be judged on its merits, and I can assure the House that there is certainly no question of commuters' views being ignored.
Having set out the formal position, I can now turn to the present trials, though it will be clear from what I have said that I shall be speaking almost entirely as a mouthpiece for British Rail.
The trials of PEP stock on the Southern Region, of which the trials in public service are a part, are being carried out as a part of British Rail's suburban stock replacement programme. Over the next 20 years or so, most of the present rolling stock used on suburban services will become life-expired. The need is most urgent on the Southern Region, where some 2,000 coaches which at present provide the whole of the inner suburban services will be reaching the end of their life. That is why PEP stock is being tested on the Southern Region, although British Rail hopes that it will lead to the final design for the new generation of inner suburban stock required on other regions. There are obviously economies of scale to be gained by standardisation.
A new development of this kind clearly requires thorough testing. By the time British Rail comes to make a decision about its suitability, the experimental train will have covered a quarter of a million miles. Engineering and opera-

tional trials have been in progress since mid-1972, and will continue until the end of 1975. Passenger trials began in June 1973. During July the experimental train ran from Waterloo to Hampton Court, Shepperton and Chessington, and during August and September from Charing Cross and Cannon Street to Bromley North, Sevenoaks, via Orpington, and Dartford.
Passenger market research was conducted during many of these journeys by independent consultants experienced in this field, usually by interviewing passengers on the train to assess their reactions. To give passengers a clear picture of various design alternatives, there are variations in the fittings and colour scheme of each car on the train. The routes have been chosen to reflect the widest possible range of travelling conditions, in particular to include the maximum number of stations with high rates of loading and interchange and to include lines with long and short station spacings.
To obtain a normal cross-section of passengers, it is essential that the train should operate a scheduled service. While it is obviously necessary to judge the train's performance in rush-hour conditions, with only one train available it is possible to run only a few trips during the rush hour. This has caused some commuters to suppose that the results of the market research will inevitably be biased against their views. This is the fear that some of my hon. Friend's constituents have.
In fact, the consultants carrying out the research are using a sampling technique designed to avoid any bias of this kind. Among the main features for research evaluation are the standing and seating conditions, ventilation and lighting, the riding quality and the door operation. Some of these features, to judge by reports in the Press, my postbag and the points made in this debate, have given rise to considerable public criticism. So I should make it clear that British Rail is not trying to present the travelling public with a fait accompli, otherwise there would be no point in the present trials. Many of the features can be changed. But there are constraints.
Thus, British Rail has taken the view that all future suburban rolling stock should have automatic door operation.


In principle, I think that we should all agree that this is sensible and desirable, not least on safety grounds. Sliding doors require large vestibules, which un, doubtedly improves conditions for those who stand, whether by choice or necessity—and there are passengers who prefer to stand—but it also results, as my hon. Friend said, in a reduction in seating. My figures are slightly different, being for four-car stock: there is a reduction from 370–430 in present four-car stock to 280 in the experimental train.
The seating capacity can be increased by eliminating one set of doors per coach—which would give 316 seats per four-car set—and further increased by going from four-across seating to five-across seating—which would give around 395 seats per four-car set. But this increased seating capacity can be achieved only at the expense of a progressive increase in the loading and unloading times of the train at stations as door space is reduced and movement within each coach constrained; and the increased time at stations means that the number of trains which it is possible to run is inevitably reduced.
At lot of thought will need to be given to finding out the optimum arrangement for any given type of service, and this is one of the points that British Rail will be examining in the light of the present trials.
When the passenger trials are completed, the information collected will be assessed by the consultants. They are expected to report their findings in December to the Southern Region, which hopes to make a public statement in the New Year. The experimental train will then undergo further operational and engineering trials for two years. This will include further public trials, probably early next year, to test the experimental train in winter operating conditions.
Only when all these trials have been completed, and design modifications made in the light of them, will the British Railways Board come to the Secretary of State with proposals for a production design. It will also need to consider, and make proposals about, the precise services on which the new type of stock would

be used. It might, for instance, not be used on all the routes operated by the present inner suburban stock. The critical factor will be the length of journey time on the service, and in particular the length of time for which it is reasonable to expect passengers to stand. I take my hon. Friend's point about some journeys being up to an hour long.
The PEP stock would certainly not be a cheap option. At present price levels, it will cost considerably more per vehicle than the type of stock which it is designed to replace; and, incidentally, the only present alternative to the experimental stock, modified in whatever ways are physically possible and economically sensible to take account of unsatisfactory features thrown up by the trials, seems to be an up-dated version of the existing stock. I remind my hon. Friend that we are talking here about stock which will be in service up to the year 2000 and perhaps beyond.
To sum up, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of PEP stock being forced on the travelling public quite against its wishes. British Rail is fully conscious of its responsibility here, and will no doubt take note of the points that have been made in this debate. The Government for their part will certainly ensure that all the necessary factors have been considered before they decide whether to authorise the production of the new stock.
I give my hon. Friend a personal assurance that I shall myself keep closely in touch with developments in this situation. Indeed, I hope to have a ride on the train at some point in the not-too-distant future so that I may make my personal evaluations.
I hope that what I have said will le-assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that these trials are going ahead in a genuine way to try to find out what the public think about the train. They are by no means a foregone conclusion. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message back, and I assure him again that I am grateful to him for having raised this important matter tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Four o'clock a.m.